Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:56:33 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mbuf header bloat ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211271151510.52749-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021127095837.43889C-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Robert Watson wrote: > > I'd like to continue to explore options for reducing the number of memory > allocations to extend storage on mbufs. One idea I've been tossing around > is adopting Jeff Roberson's extension model used in struct proc and > related structures. I've been wondering about a couple of things.. 1/ soemtiems I wonder if ALL mbufs should not be external mbufs. In other words, if the mbuf were always just a header and data was always stored on an external buffer it might actually simplify some code. It would then become possible that some tag space be allocated along with the mbuf header.. if MAC was in the system, then every mbuf would be allocated with a MAC tag by default. Maybe as a single allocation. The UMA allocator's init() capability gives us a lot of latitude in doing things like that. 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.4.21.0211271151510.52749-100000>