Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:33:22 -0500 From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mbuf header bloat ? Message-ID: <20021127163322.A80366@unixdaemons.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211271249210.52749-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 12:51:27PM -0800 References: <20021127153543.A80168@unixdaemons.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211271249210.52749-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. -- 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021127163322.A80366>