[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lwip-users] RE: [lwip] questions & suggestions
From: |
Adel Mamin |
Subject: |
[lwip-users] RE: [lwip] questions & suggestions |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Jan 2003 00:50:20 -0000 |
Hello, Adam.
I have looked through your 0.5 code and it seems that the pbuf management is
OK. But I think there can be made a small improvement:
You call pbuf_refresh() in pbuf_realloc() and in pbuf_free() and in any case
if the pbuf_pool is busy now (because of the others threads ONLY) the
corresponding thread will be blocked. I think that it is not very good. Your
suggestion to add a separate timeout-based thread to move buffers from the
pbuf_pool_free_cache to the pbuf_pool list looks attractive very much. What
if you leave pbuf_refresh() function (to refresh pbuf_pool by fact of
appearing a free buffer in pbuf_pool_free_cache) and also add a low priority
timeout-based thread to do the same job. In this case the pbuf_refresh()
function should not block the corresponding thread but just try the
semaphore: if it is locked - refreshing is not made and will be actually
made later by timeout-based thread dedicated for this purpose. I believe
that using this approach you can increase the TCP/IP stack's overall
performance.
Adel.
[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]
- [lwip-users] Re: [lwip] questions & suggestions, Adam Dunkels, 2003/01/08
- [lwip-users] RE: [lwip] questions & suggestions, Adel Mamin, 2003/01/08
- [lwip-users] Re: [lwip] questions & suggestions, Adam Dunkels, 2003/01/08
- [lwip-users] RE: [lwip] questions & suggestions, Adel Mamin, 2003/01/08
- [lwip-users] Re: [lwip] questions & suggestions, Adam Dunkels, 2003/01/08
- [lwip-users] Re: [lwip] questions & suggestions, Adam Dunkels, 2003/01/08
- [lwip-users] RE: [lwip] questions & suggestions, Adel Mamin, 2003/01/09
- [lwip-users] RE: [lwip] questions & suggestions,
Adel Mamin <=
- [lwip-users] Re: [lwip] questions & suggestions, Adam Dunkels, 2003/01/09