Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 15:41:13 -0700 From: Jon Mini <baka@elvis.mu.org> To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: the incredible shrinking socket Message-ID: <20020707224113.GP55378@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20020707131421.A50599@FreeBSD.ORG> References: <20020707083710.GM97638@elvis.mu.org> <20020707143846.A13771-100000@patrocles.silby.com> <20020707131421.A50599@FreeBSD.ORG>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 01:14:21PM -0700, Juli Mallett wrote: > * De: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> [ Data: 2002-07-07 ] > [ Subjecte: Re: the incredible shrinking socket ] > > > > On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > > Some time ago I noticed that there appeared to be several members > > > of struct socket that were either only used by listen sockets or > > > only used by data sockets. > > > > > > I've taken a stab at unionizing the members and we wind up saving > > > 28 bytes per socket on i386, and probably nearly double that on > > > any 64 bit platform. That's ~15%, which isn't too shabby. > > > > Unions are ooogly. Would it be possible to seperate listen-only > > structures out into a seperate struct instead with a pointer to it? > > If you're going to do that why not just end the struct with > char foo[1]; > > And overlay the unique bits at the end? Because that is even more oogly than a union. -- Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org> http://www.freebsd.org/ 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?20020707224113.GP55378>