Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:38:31 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mbuf header bloat ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211271338020.52749-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20021127163322.A80366@unixdaemons.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Bosko Milekic wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 12:51:27PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > true.. if it has a 'size' argument it would do what I was thinkng > > about.. > > We actually do have that in the new m_getm(). If you do a m_getm() it > allows you to specify 'size' and it will allocate a packet header mbuf > for you with external storage and may even allocate more than one and > chain them together for you in one shot and without dropping the > per-CPU cache lock, if it can get away with it. It does a 'best' fit > allocation so you effectively have your 'small,' 'big,' and 'real big' > scenario. cool I hadn't noticed that.. > > -- > Bosko Milekic * bmilekic@unixdaemons.com * bmilekic@FreeBSD.org > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" 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.4.21.0211271338020.52749-100000>