Randall Stewart wrote this message on Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 16:55 -0400: > Mike Silbersack wrote: > >On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > > > >>over it an copies the data into the mbufs by using uiomove(). > >>sosend_dgram() > >>and sosend_generic() are change to use m_uiotombuf() instead of > >>sosend_copyin(). > > > > > >Can you do some UDP testing with 512b, 1K, 2K, 4K, 8K, and 16K packets to > >see if performance changes there as well? > > Hmm.. I would think 512b and 1K will not show any > improvement.. since they would probably end up either > in an mbuf chain.. or a single 2k (or maybe 4k) cluster.. > ... quite a waste.. now if we had 512b and 1k clusters that > would be cool... > > In fact I have always thought we should: > > a) have no data portion in an mbuf.. just pointers i.e. always > an EXT > > b) Have a 256/512 and 1k cluster too.. > > This would allow copy by reference no matter what size si > being sent... IMO it's quite a waste of memory the way we have thigns now, though w/ TSO it'll change things... w/ 512 byte mbuf and a 2k cluster just to store just 1514 bytes of data, that's only 60% effeciency wrt to memory usage... so, we currently waste 40% of memory allocated to mbufs+clusters... Even reducing mbufs back to 128 or 256 would be a big help, though IPSEC I believe would have issues... 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... -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."Received on Fri Sep 29 2006 - 19:37:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:00 UTC