Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 10:28:01 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@sneakerz.org> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, jlemon@freebsd.org, bmilekic@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet tcp_input.c tcp_output.c tcp_subr.c tcp_timer.c tcp_usrreq.c tcp_var.h Message-ID: <20010623102801.F57058@sneakerz.org> In-Reply-To: <200106230321.f5N3Llv09510@freefall.freebsd.org>; from silby@FreeBSD.org on Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 08:21:47PM -0700 References: <200106230321.f5N3Llv09510@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Mike Silbersack <silby@FreeBSD.org> [010622 22:21] wrote: > silby 2001/06/22 20:21:47 PDT > > Modified files: > sys/netinet tcp_input.c tcp_output.c tcp_subr.c > tcp_timer.c tcp_usrreq.c tcp_var.h > Log: > Eliminate the allocation of a tcp template structure for each > connection. The information contained in a tcptemp can be > reconstructed from a tcpcb when needed. I may have missed it, but did you guys happen to run a perf test on this along the same lines as the excellent work done to benchmark the new mbuf allocator? My main concern is that a simple bcopy is cheaper than digging into the inpcb/tcpcb to fill in the packet info. There's patches avaiable to use a smaller zone-like allocation strategy to conserve storage space that we may want to use instead of eliminating it completely in case there is noticeable performance penalties. Could someone generate those lovely numbers we saw earlier this week with and without this patch? -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010623102801.F57058>