Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>