On Fri, 17 Sep 2010, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Although keeping free items around improves performance, it does consume
memory too. And the fact that that memory is not freed on lowmem condition
makes the situation worse.
Interesting. We may run into related issues with excessive mbuf (cluster)
caching in the per-cpu buckets as well.
Having a general solutions for that is appreciated. Maybe the size of the
free per-cpu buckets should be specified when setting up the UMA zone. Of
certain frequently re-used elements we may want to cache more, other less.
I've been keeping a vague eye out for this over the last few years, and
haven't spotted many problems in production machines I've inspected. You can
use the umastat tool in the tools tree to look at the distribution of memory
over buckets (etc) in UMA manually. It would be nice if it had some automated
statistics on fragmentation however. Short-lived fragmentation is likely, and
isn't an issue, so what you want is a tool that monitors over time and reports
on longer-lived fragmentation.
The main fragmentation issue we've had in the past has been due to
mbuf+cluster caching, which prevented mbufs from being freed usefully in some
cases. Jeff's ongoing work on variable-sized mbufs would entirely eliminate
that problem...
Robert
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
