Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:07:06 -0400 From: Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, gallatin@cs.duke.edu Subject: Re: Much improved sosend_*() functions Message-ID: <451D990A.8080504@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <451D973C.8070004@freebsd.org> References: <451C4850.5030302@freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0609281928020.20971@niwun.pair.com> <451D884F.1030807@cisco.com> <20060929213722.GR80527@funkthat.com> <451D973C.8070004@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andre Oppermann wrote: > John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > mbufs are 256 bytes. Thats what I had thought :-) > >> Hmmm.. If we switched clusters to 1536 bytes in size, we'd be able to >> fit 8 in 12k (though I guess for 8k page boxes we'd do 16 in 24k)... The >> only issue w/ that would be that a few of the clusters would possibly >> split page boundaries... How much this would effect performance would >> be an interesting question to answer... > > > Splitting page boundaries is not an option as it may not be physically > contigous. That can be rather hazardous :-) > > Just don't overengineer the stuff. Mbufs are only used temporarily and > a bit theoretical waste is not much a problem (so far at least). > Yes, but I think a combination of less copying and a bit better use of space could help overall.. but I guess as they say the "proof is in the pudding" so I will have to play a bit.. R -- Randall Stewart NSSTG - Cisco Systems Inc. 803-345-0369 <or> 815-342-5222 (cell)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?451D990A.8080504>