Re: RFC: m_tag pool cache

[Kengo NAKAHARA <k-nakahara%iij.ad.jp@localhost>]

Hi,

On 2016/02/19 21:25, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:29:35PM +0900, Kengo NAKAHARA wrote:
>> I agree it should be removed in first place. However, I think there is
>> several cases which cannot avoid to use m_tag. So, it may be required
>> to rescue such cases.
> 
> 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.

Sorry about my lack of consideration, I turn down the patch. I will
send the ALTQ refactor patch using a specific pool cache later.
The m_tag used by ALTQ is struct altq_pktattr which have three field.


Thanks,

-- 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Internet Initiative Japan Inc.

Device Engineering Section,
Core Product Development Department,
Product Division,
Technology Unit

Kengo NAKAHARA <k-nakahara%iij.ad.jp@localhost>