Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 16:42:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@FreeBSD.ORG>, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Should we keep a cache of mbuf+cluster ready for use ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0206291637430.81668-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20020629192929.A58120@unixdaemons.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'd say yes. you could let uma hold them for you as it has support for 'constructors and destructors' for types you ask it to manage. it will call the constructor whenever it needs to create a new one and teh destructor when it gives that memeory back to the system. In between the two operations, the memory is type-stable, so you can have it allocate arbitrarily complicated objects. I'm allocating thread structures, which have KVM mapped kernel stacks hanging off them. So what UMA is handing me is not a simple mamory object but a structure, which owns a vm object and anothermamory range linked to it. (including the PCB). there is no reason uma cannot and you a mbuf wit a cluster already on it.. Julian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0206291637430.81668-100000>