Re: RFC: m_tag pool cache

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 01:25:36PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> We don't have that many random consumers of tags in the tree. For the
> hot cases, it makes a lot more sense to put a field or two into the mbuf
> packet header -- if more data is needed, a specific pool is needed
> anyway.

I think a hot case is PACKET_TAG_VLAN. If you're using VLANs, you'll
have one per packet going in or out. It's 16 bits so it could easily fit
in the mbuf header.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--