Robert Iakobashvili wrote:
Vanilla 2.6.18.3 works for me perfectly, whereas 2.6.19.5 and
2.6.20.6 do not.
Looking into the tcp /proc entries of 2.6.18.3 versus 2.6.19.5
tcp_rmem and tcp_wmem are the same, whereas tcp_mem are
much different:
kernel tcp_mem
---------------------------------------
2.6.18.3 12288 16384 24576
2.6.19.5 3072 4096 6144
Is not it done deliberately by the below patch:
commit 9e950efa20dc8037c27509666cba6999da9368e8
Author: John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon Nov 6 23:10:51 2006 -0800
[TCP]: Don't use highmem in tcp hash size calculation.
This patch removes consideration of high memory when determining TCP
hash table sizes. Taking into account high memory results in tcp_mem
values that are too large.
Is it a feature?
My machine has:
MemTotal: 484368 kB
and
for all kernel configurations are actually the same with
CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G=y
Thanks,
Another patch that went in right around that time:
commit 52bf376c63eebe72e862a1a6e713976b038c3f50
Author: John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue Nov 14 20:25:17 2006 -0800
[TCP]: Fix up sysctl_tcp_mem initialization.
Fix up tcp_mem initial settings to take into account the size of the
hash entries (different on SMP and non-SMP systems).
Signed-off-by: John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(This has been changed again for 2.6.21.)
In the dmesg, there should be some messages like this:
IP route cache hash table entries: 32768 (order: 5, 131072 bytes)
TCP established hash table entries: 131072 (order: 8, 1048576 bytes)
TCP bind hash table entries: 65536 (order: 6, 262144 bytes)
TCP: Hash tables configured (established 131072 bind 65536)
What do yours say?
Thanks,
-John
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
