Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 23:47:02 -0500 (CDT) From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: silby@silby.com, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: the incredible shrinking socket Message-ID: <200207080447.g684l2t01700@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <local.mail.freebsd-net/20020707192134.T15265-100000@patrocles.silby.com> References: <local.mail.freebsd-net/20020707195321.GN97638@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <local.mail.freebsd-net/20020707192134.T15265-100000@patrocles.silby.com> you write: > >On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> Possibly, but the additional pointer dereference would be expensive >> and a lot of code would have to change without the compatibility >> macros. >> >> I sort of did it as a proof of concept, but of course since it doesn't >> completely work I haven't proved it. :) >> >> >> -- >> -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] > >Well, if it's not working I wouldn't worry too much about it. A TIME_WAIT >cache or socket buffer autosizing would probably save a lot more memory. >:) I do have a smaller TIME_WAIT structure done; it even throws the socket away since it isn't needed. The savings are currently about 500 bytes, and I can and also perform some other savings in the general case. I think Alfred was just trying to get his changes done first before I got around to committing what I have. :-) :-) :-) (It's currently in p4) -- Jonathan 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?200207080447.g684l2t01700>