Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:59:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> To: net@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> Subject: Re: mbuf layout optimizations Message-ID: <603332.84337.qm@web63906.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=0A=0A--- On Fri, 6/19/09, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> wrote:= =0A=0A> From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net>=0A> Subject: mbuf lay= out optimizations=0A> To: net@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org=0A> Date: Fr= iday, June 19, 2009, 5:12 AM=0A> http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/mbuf2.diff= =0A> =0A> Hello,=0A> =0A> This is a call for testers and feedback on my mbu= f layout=0A> improvements. I'm trying to decide whether I will push to=0A> = have these included in 8.0. After reducing the scope=0A> slightly from my l= ast patch, I have not encountered any=0A> problems.=A0 Kip Macy has also be= en using it for the past=0A> few weeks without issue.=0A> =0A> You should n= ot expect any functional changes from this=0A> patch.=A0 The goal is mostly= to pave the way fors more=0A> sensible mbuf handling in the future, althou= gh it does offer=0A> a few performance benefits.=0A> =0A> The only issue is= that cxgb support requires another set of=0A> patches from Kip.=A0 If anyo= ne needs those I will prod=0A> him to reply with that diff.=0A> =0A> Thanks= ,=0A> Jeff=0A=0AI thought that the purpose of m_tags was to keep individual= applications from having to "patch" mbufs. Has that idea proven to be too= =0Aperformance-challenged?=0A=0ABarney=0A=0A=0A
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?603332.84337.qm>