Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:31:36 -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: <451D90B8.8060202@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.58.0609291712290.66811@niwun.pair.com> References: <451C4850.5030302@freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0609281928020.20971@niwun.pair.com> <451D884F.1030807@cisco.com> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0609291712290.66811@niwun.pair.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Silbersack wrote: > On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Randall Stewart wrote: > > >>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.. > > > I know, I just want to make sure that it doesn't somehow cause performance > loss for those cases! > > >>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.. Hmm.. I could do that.. maybe I will when my plate clears off a bit.. but then again.. that may be never :-0 R > > > Implement and benchmark it. :) > > Mike "Silby" Silbersack > -- 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?451D90B8.8060202>