mbuf question

[Julian Elischer]

On 3/15/14, 9:31 PM, Rui Paulo wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2014, at 16:13, Ian Lepore <ian at 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.

why not do what ipfw does?
>
> --
> Rui Paulo
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>