> Bosko, [deletia]
> are you going to convert mbuf tag allocator to UMA? Now >tags are allocated with malloc(). AFAIK, tags are used heavily in pf, >and forthcoming ALTQ. Moving to UMA should affect their performance >positively. First off, malloc() *is* UMA. With mbuma in the tree, I don't believe we have any remaining custom-allocators in the tree. As for what to do with m_tags, it is still unclear to me. Personally, I'm conflicted about their use. On one hand, they offer a clean way to attach metadata to packets, but on the other hand they are quite expensive. If you read the paper on mbuma, you'll notice that I point out that it would be worth investigating whether, in scenarios where an m_tag is ALWAYS required per packet (e.g., MAC), providing a secondary zone with pre-allocated m_tags for packet headers might be worth it. Prior to this work, however, I suggest we investigate the possibility of using smaller mini-mbufs whenever clusters are used so that space wastage is reduced. -Bosko _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"