From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 25 18:18:07 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1809237B401 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:18:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay.pair.com (relay.pair.com [209.68.1.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 328A943FB1 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:18:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: (qmail 63901 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2003 02:18:04 -0000 Received: from niwun.pair.com (HELO localhost) (209.68.2.70) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2003 02:18:04 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 209.68.2.70 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:14:41 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack To: Sam Leffler In-Reply-To: <150f01c2f33a$bb131d40$52557f42@errno.com> Message-ID: <20030325201354.T458@odysseus.silby.com> References: <200303252344.h2PNip18098878@www.ambrisko.com> <150f01c2f33a$bb131d40$52557f42@errno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-26.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, QUOTE_TWICE_1,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: Doug Ambrisko cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf options src/sys/netinet ip_output.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:18:10 -0000 On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Sam Leffler wrote: > > I've been pondering where the tradeoff between avoiding memory copies and > > doing excessive scatter / gather DMA lies. Perhaps we should be > > defragmenting any chain over a certain amount of length, no matter the > > limit imposed by the card. This sounds like a Terry question. :) > > I hit this in fast ipsec. I do "agressive coalescing" when creating > writable mbuf chains on output. It's a big win for various things. Full > results will be in the paper I'm writing for bsdcon. > > Sam I look forward to reading about your results. Is your "agressive coalescion" function ready for more general use? Mike "Silby" Silbersack