On 19 Sep 2010, at 09:42, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 19/09/2010 11:27 Jeff Roberson said the following: >> I don't like this because even with very large buffers you can still have >> high >> enough turnover to require per-cpu caching. Kip specifically added UMA >> support >> to address this issue in zfs. If you have allocations which don't require >> per-cpu caching and are very large why even use UMA? > > Good point. > Right now I am running with 4 items/bucket limit for items larger than 32KB.
If allocate turnover is low, I'd think that malloc(9) would do better here. How many allocs/frees per second are there in peak operation? 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"
