On 3/16/06, Sunay Tripathi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Plus do we allocate > a mblk with space for each possible attribute type or do we do lazy > allocate etc etc. >
Actually, I often wondered whether the current mblk_t/dblk_t layout hurts the OS anyway. I often wondered whether, in code scanning large numbers of relatively small (sub-page) STREAMS messages it made sense that the mblk_t and dblk_t were allocated from different pages therefore forcing at least 2 TLB entries per message (although messages allocated consecutively are quite likely to get mblk_t-s from the same page if the cache is not too hot). I once did some code to concatenate the mblk_t and dblk_t for small messages but never had time to do any serious measurements on it. So, if there's a move to extend messages for metadata then it may be a good idea to address memory layout too. Paul -- Paul Durrant http://www.linkedin.com/in/pdurrant _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list networking-discuss@opensolaris.org
