On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Bosko Milekic wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 11:35:52PM -0500, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> >
> > We have talked about it quite a bit. I'd love to remove the hard limit on
> > mbufs. I may do this soon, but I have other uma related work that will
> > probably come before it.
>
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 11:35:52PM -0500, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> > There's one big target, though: mbufs. I know that Bosko put a lot of
> > work into his new mbuf allocator, but if you could find a way to merge
> > mbufs into the slab allocator
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> There's one big target, though: mbufs. I know that Bosko put a lot of
> work into his new mbuf allocator, but if you could find a way to merge
> mbufs into the slab allocator the benefits would be huge. Have you
> discussed doing this with Bosko ye
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 02:59:04AM -0600, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> I've looked over vmstat -z with a UMA kernel, it's really nice to know
> that everything is coexisting together now.
>
> There's one big target, though: mbufs. I know that Bosko put a lot of
> work into his new mbuf allocator,
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> >
> > Once everything's UMA'd, then we can develop new sizing parameters.
>
> Everything has been UMA'd other than MD code, so I'm working on making the
> system take advantage of it.
>
> Thanks!
> Jeff
I've looked over vmstat -z with a UMA kernel, it
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
>
> > That would end up being a reduction below the current value; right now
> > sockets > maxfiles with large maxuser values. Whether or not this is a
> > necessary differential, I'm not sure. (With TIME_WAIT and FIN_WAIT_2
> > sockets, I
< said:
> That would end up being a reduction below the current value; right now
> sockets > maxfiles with large maxuser values. Whether or not this is a
> necessary differential, I'm not sure. (With TIME_WAIT and FIN_WAIT_2
> sockets, I believe that maxsockets should exceed maxfiles.)
My poin
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >
> > Currently it means, if I can't get KVA or a page to back it, return NULL.
> > It just stops operations that would REALLY block. The old code reserved
> > the KVA up front and just found a page at interrupt time.
>
> Bottom line, will the sem
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> I have kept the current limits in place, but I think that it's somewhat
> ugly to have this policy enforced in the allocator where it is hard to
> adjust with a sysctl. Perhaps maxsockets could stay but become run time
> adjustable.
>
> Is there any c
* Jeff Roberson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020320 12:29] wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> >
> > That depends on what this implies. :)
> >
> > Does it mean that when giving M_NOWAIT there's a chance it may fail
> > more often than the old zone allocator? Meaning does M_NO
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
>
> > We still need to cap the number of sockets somehow, as it would be bad for
> > sockets to consume all memory.
>
> There's already a cap: maxfiles.
>
> -GAWollman
That would end up being a reduction below the current value; right now
so
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> We still need to cap the number of sockets somehow, as it would be bad for
> sockets to consume all memory. If you want to move the socket limit to
> someplace where it can be modified via a sysctl, that'd be great. As
> you're going through and
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> That depends on what this implies. :)
>
> Does it mean that when giving M_NOWAIT there's a chance it may fail
> more often than the old zone allocator? Meaning does M_NOWAIT mean
> "only allocate from cache" or do you do close to the same thing
< said:
> We still need to cap the number of sockets somehow, as it would be bad for
> sockets to consume all memory.
There's already a cap: maxfiles.
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> Would anyone be upset if I got rid of maxsockets and consequently the
> limits on the *pcb zones? This was previously used so that the zone
> allocator could allocate items at interrupt time. Now you can just supply
> M_NOWAIT/WAITOK and get the desi
* Jeff Roberson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020320 11:36] wrote:
> Would anyone be upset if I got rid of maxsockets and consequently the
> limits on the *pcb zones? This was previously used so that the zone
> allocator could allocate items at interrupt time. Now you can just supply
> M_NOWAIT/WAITOK an
16 matches
Mail list logo
