Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:08:02 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, gallatin@cs.duke.edu Subject: Re: Much improved sosend_*() functions Message-ID: <451D8B32.9010204@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <451D884F.1030807@cisco.com> References: <451C4850.5030302@freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0609281928020.20971@niwun.pair.com> <451D884F.1030807@cisco.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Randall Stewart wrote: > 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 :-) Well, people tell me to "profile, not speculate". So I'm doing it now with quite some success. Lets file your little rant here into the same category. ;-) -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?451D8B32.9010204>