julian at freebsd.org
Mon Sep 27 16:08:47 UTC 2010
On 9/27/10 6:14 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 27.09.2010 15:18, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 02:55:45PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>>>> my idea was to have an extra field in the mbuf to tell how much room
>>>> should be reserved/used for metadata (such as mtags) after
>>>> the payload area so you don't need to change the allocator, and
>>>> possibly can even modify this on an existing mbuf.
>>>> Almost always mbufs have spare room (e.g. incoming pkts have all
>>>> data in the cluster and mostly empty mdata; outgoing, except
>>>> for rare cases, tend to be in a similar situation.
>>>> So this approach would allow to take an already allocated
>>>> mbuf and put the mtag in the spare area after the data.
>>> For incoming data this approach could work as usually 2K mbuf
>>> are used and they have trailing space available, or rather the normal
>>> mbuf referencing the cluster doesn't have its own data section
>>> When trailing space should be used the M_TAILINGSPACE() needs
>>> and a full tree audit is required to make sure that all mbuf
>>> consumers are
>>> correctly using it and not some own version that directly assumes
>>> mbuf sizes, etc. A lot of work.
>>> For locally generated mbufs and socket buffers we try to use the
>>> mbufs to
>>> their maximal extent. When the socket buffer data is packetized
>>> it normally
>>> is referenced then we get the normal mbuf with its data portion
>>> unused. So
>>> that could work.
>>> A complication is the m_tag_free() field and function which puts
>>> the memory
>>> deallocation into the hands of the mtag user. That means all mtag
>>> have to made aware of provided storage w/o having to return the
>>> to the memory allocator (malloc/UMA).
>>> So the only way I realistically see is to make use of the mbuf's
>>> data portion when it has external storage to it. This should
>>> cover about 98% of all cases. The rest has to malloc() the mtag
>>> as usual.
>> so it wouldn't be bad -- i cannot judge the numbers, but definitely
>> it would work for all incoming traffic, plus all tcp data packets
>> (as the payload is in the cluster), plus all pure acks (which are
>> plus all UDP above some 200 bytes...
> Yes, about that.
>>> I could whip up a prototype for review in the next weeks.
>> I seem to remember that jeffr had already something done in Perforce.
> That's a more general overhaul of the way mbuf's are structured and
> allocated with UMA. I'm not sure it provides for the mtag issue. Will
> check though.
I'd like to see if we can go over his stuff and any other suggested
changes before 9.0
and see if we can agree on a change for 9.0
Jeff, we discussed this a year ago.. do you still have your suggested
More information about the freebsd-net