Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:44:53 -0500 From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Getting rid of maxsockets. Message-ID: <20020321234453.A96524@unixdaemons.com> In-Reply-To: <20020321233416.B41335-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>; from jroberson@chesapeake.net on Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 11:35:52PM -0500 References: <20020322025429.K3059-100000@patrocles.silby.com> <20020321233416.B41335-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 11:35:52PM -0500, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > > There's one big target, though: mbufs. I know that Bosko put a lot of > > work into his new mbuf allocator, but if you could find a way to merge > > mbufs into the slab allocator the benefits would be huge. Have you > > discussed doing this with Bosko yet? > > > > Mike "Silby" Silbersack > > > > We have talked about it quite a bit. I'd love to remove the hard limit on > mbufs. I may do this soon, but I have other uma related work that will > probably come before it. I'm not so sure I like this idea. What would be better (and perhaps what you meant) is: "be able to expand the size of the mbuf allocation `pool' at runtime." In any case, we should not jump to quick conclusions with all data structures right away. Instead, I propose that we first glue-in mbuf allocations to UMA (not too difficult, given that UMA provides an allocation routine stub). If this is done properly [without macro-performance loss] then it should be rather trivial to bring in new functionality. > Jeff -- Bosko Milekic bmilekic@unixdaemons.com bmilekic@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?20020321234453.A96524>