Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:37:22 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, gallatin@cs.duke.edu Subject: Re: Much improved sosend_*() functions Message-ID: <20060929213722.GR80527@funkthat.com> 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 this message on Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 16:55 -0400:
> 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...
IMO it's quite a waste of memory the way we have thigns now, though
w/ TSO it'll change things...
w/ 512 byte mbuf and a 2k cluster just to store just 1514 bytes of data,
that's only 60% effeciency wrt to memory usage... so, we currently
waste 40% of memory allocated to mbufs+clusters... Even reducing
mbufs back to 128 or 256 would be a big help, though IPSEC I believe
would have issues...
Hmmm.. If we switched clusters to 1536 bytes in size, we'd be able to
fit 8 in 12k (though I guess for 8k page boxes we'd do 16 in 24k)... The
only issue w/ that would be that a few of the clusters would possibly
split page boundaries... How much this would effect performance would
be an interesting question to answer...
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060929213722.GR80527>