From owner-freebsd-net Mon Oct 30 11:30:14 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from implode.root.com (root.com [209.102.106.178]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A229837B4C5; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:30:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by implode.root.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA01623; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:27:50 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200010301927.LAA01623@implode.root.com> To: Bosko Milekic Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MP: per-CPU mbuf allocation lists In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:20:52 EST." From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:27:50 -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > I recently wrote an initial "scratch pad" design for per-CPU mbuf > lists (in the MP case). The design consists simply of introducing > these "fast" lists for each CPU and populating them with mbufs on bootup. > Allocations from these lists would not need to be protected with a mutex > as each CPU has its own. The general mmbfree list remains, and remains > protected with a mutex, in case the per-CPU list is empty. I have only one question - is the lock overhead really so high that this is needed? -DG David Greenman Co-founder, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org President, TeraSolutions, Inc. - http://www.terasolutions.com Pave the road of life with opportunities. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message