Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:55:43 -0400 From: Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, gallatin@cs.duke.edu Subject: Re: Much improved sosend_*() functions Message-ID: <451D884F.1030807@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.58.0609281928020.20971@niwun.pair.com> References: <451C4850.5030302@freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0609281928020.20971@niwun.pair.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Silbersack wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
>
>>over it an copies the data into the mbufs by using uiomove(). sosend_dgram()
>>and sosend_generic() are change to use m_uiotombuf() instead of sosend_copyin().
>
>
> Can you do some UDP testing with 512b, 1K, 2K, 4K, 8K, and 16K packets to
> see if performance changes there as well?
Hmm.. I would think 512b and 1K will not show any
improvement.. since they would probably end up either
in an mbuf chain.. or a single 2k (or maybe 4k) cluster..
... quite a waste.. now if we had 512b and 1k clusters that
would be cool...
In fact I have always thought we should:
a) have no data portion in an mbuf.. just pointers i.e. always
an EXT
b) Have a 256/512 and 1k cluster too..
This would allow copy by reference no matter what size si
being sent...
But of course .. thats just me :-)
R
>
> How about local sockets?
>
> Impressive improvements for TCP, in any case!
>
> Mike "Silby" Silbersack
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>
--
Randall Stewart
NSSTG - Cisco Systems Inc.
803-345-0369 <or> 815-342-5222 (cell)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?451D884F.1030807>