Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:31:52 -0700 From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org> To: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>, Hooman Fazaeli <hoomanfazaeli@gmail.com> Subject: Re: mbuf question Message-ID: <BEA4D691-6405-4D5B-B437-DAEB655D45EF@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1394925228.1149.558.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <53230214.7010501@gmail.com> <BBAFAB2A-F496-46A2-8FE0-224BE562EAA7@FreeBSD.org> <532405B7.2020007@gmail.com> <96659837-1FDC-421D-A339-87104A0075C7@FreeBSD.org> <5324D669.804@gmail.com> <5324DAC0.9020508@gmail.com> <1394925228.1149.558.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15 Mar 2014, at 16:13, Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > How about an optimization that puts tags in that area when it's > available to avoid the allocation overhead? I don't know much about = the > network code, so maybe that's not a sensible idea. The problem with mbuf tags is that they are not fixed size, so they = can't easily use UMA (although they use malloc which is backed by UMA, = but the performance is lower). If tags are not an option, I suppose = Hooman could use fields from struct pkthdr, but this might come with = risks if the code is not in the tree.=20 -- Rui Paulo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BEA4D691-6405-4D5B-B437-DAEB655D45EF>