On Friday 04 June 2004 04:27 am, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 08:19:11AM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:
B On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:56:52AM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
B S allocated using this mechanism. I did it once for vlan tags but
botched it B S (didn't handle module
On Wednesday 02 June 2004 02:49 am, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Bosko,
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:51:01PM -0700, Bosko Milekic wrote:
B mbuma is an Mbuf Cluster allocator built on top of a number of
B extensions to the UMA framework, all included herein.
are you going to convert mbuf tag
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:56:52AM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
Sare you going to convert mbuf tag allocator to UMA? Now
S tags are allocated with malloc(). AFAIK, tags are used heavily in pf,
S and forthcoming ALTQ. Moving to UMA should affect their performance
S positively.
S
S You probably
On Wednesday 02 June 2004 07:12, Bosko Milekic wrote:
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
Bosko,
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:51:01PM -0700, Bosko Milekic wrote:
B mbuma is an Mbuf Cluster allocator built on top of a number of
B extensions to the UMA framework, all included herein.
are you going to convert mbuf tag allocator to UMA? Now
tags are allocated with malloc(). AFAIK,
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
(Hello Chris Haalboom? :-))
Hello,
In order to avoid having to type everything again, I'll refer
to the commit log. PLEASE READ IT IN FULL:
Bring in mbuma to replace mballoc.
mbuma is an Mbuf Cluster allocator built on top of a number of
extensions to the UMA framework, all included
7 matches
Mail list logo
