From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Aug 18 21:36:48 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB983106564A;
	Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:36:48 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A57B18FC15;
	Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:36:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EEAA3B081;
	Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:36:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7ILakDD006883;
	Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:36:46 GMT (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Matt Jacob <mjacob@freebsd.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:12:32 MST."
	<50300540.9060906@feral.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:36:46 +0000
Message-ID: <6882.1345325806@critter.freebsd.dk>
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: BUFSIZ = 1024, still ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:36:49 -0000

In message <50300540.9060906@feral.com>, Matthew Jacob writes:

>[...] that there might be a measurable 
>difference for having to copy 4K (unaligned) than 1K (unaligned) to 
>kernel space for disposition.

Actually, as far as I'm aware, the 4K would be page-aligned by
default due to our malloc(3) implementation.

>Wasn't there just a recent discussion about running 1.x binaries? 

1.x binaries wouldn't notice and wouldn't be able to tell
if BUFSIZ is different in 10.x

>If you're going to talk about making a change to defaults, the default 
>MAXPHYS and DLFTPHYS have been undersized for years now.

Indeed, but as I understand it, those require device driver changes ?

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.