Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:56:05 -0500
From:      Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>
To:        Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com>
Cc:        Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, terry@freebsd.org, rwatson@freebsd.org, jlemon@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: New Mbuf Allocator (some graphs)
Message-ID:  <20010615235605.E68883@prism.flugsvamp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20010615194459.A1549@technokratis.com>
References:  <20010615185421.A1179@technokratis.com> <20010615183255.C68883@prism.flugsvamp.com> <20010615194459.A1549@technokratis.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 07:44:59PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote:

> > >   Here are some performance results. Keep in mind that we're still under
> > > Giant.
> > > 
> > > http://people.freebsd.org/~bmilekic/code/mb_alloc/results.html
> > 
> > Just for comparision, 6-way results are at:
> > 
> >     http://www.flugsvamp.com/~jlemon/fbsd/netpipe/
> 
> 	Are you sure those aren't inverted? (i.e. swap(present, mb_alloc)?)
> 
> 	In any case, the mb_alloc code you used still has the malloc() and
> free() calls during cluster allocation and freeing and still, it looks to
> me as very comparable nonetheless. 

I've updated the page with results from running Bosko's latest
code (without the malloc/free calls).  The results are at the
above URL.  The performance of the new allocator on this benchmark
comes out ahead of the old one.
-- 
Jonathan

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010615235605.E68883>