Hi,
On 22/11/14 18:09, Robert N. M. Watson wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2014, at 17:40, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Skimming through a bunch of hosts with moderately loaded hosts
with reasonably high uptime I couldn't find one where
net.inet.tcp.timer_race was not zero. A ny suggestions how to
>>>
On 21 Nov 2014, at 17:40, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> Skimming through a bunch of hosts with moderately loaded hosts with
>>> reasonably high uptime I couldn't find one where net.inet.tcp.timer_race
>>> was not zero. A ny suggestions how to best reproduce the race(s) in
>>> tcp_timer.c?
>>
>> They
On 21 November 2014 07:32, Robert N. M. Watson wrote:
>
> On 21 Nov 2014, at 15:20, Marko Zec wrote:
>
>>> Bjoern and I chatted for the last twenty or so minutes about the
>>> code, and believe that as things stand, it is *not* safe to turn off
>>> UMA_ZONE_NOFREE for TCP due to a teardown race i
On 21 Nov 2014, at 15:20, Marko Zec wrote:
>> Bjoern and I chatted for the last twenty or so minutes about the
>> code, and believe that as things stand, it is *not* safe to turn off
>> UMA_ZONE_NOFREE for TCP due to a teardown race in TCP that has been
>> known about and discussed for several y
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:01:13 +
"Robert N. M. Watson" wrote:
>
> On 21 Nov 2014, at 11:02, Marko Zec wrote:
>
> >> I had convinced myself for UDP many years ago that it was ok to
> >> remove it. People have touched the code however so it’s
> >> definitively worth re-checking again.
> >>
>
On 21 Nov 2014, at 11:02, Marko Zec wrote:
>> I had convinced myself for UDP many years ago that it was ok to
>> remove it. People have touched the code however so it’s definitively
>> worth re-checking again.
>>
>> For TCP we clearly cannot do it (yet, and couldn’t back then). But
>> TCP wa
On 21 Nov 2014, at 11:02, Marko Zec wrote:
> Now that we've found ourselves in this discussion, I'm really
> becoming curious why exactly do we need UMA_ZONE_NOFREE for network
> stack zones at all? Admittedly, I always thought that the primary
> purpose of UMA_ZONE_NOFREE was to prevent uma_r
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:37:25 +
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote:
>
> On 21 Nov 2014, at 08:25 , Robert N. M. Watson
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 20 Nov 2014, at 23:29, Marko Zec wrote:
> >
> >>> Can folks take a look at this?
> >>>
> >>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1201
> >>
> >> All UMA zones used i
On 21 Nov 2014, at 08:25 , Robert N. M. Watson wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 2014, at 23:29, Marko Zec wrote:
>
>>> Can folks take a look at this?
>>>
>>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1201
>>
>> All UMA zones used in the network stack have been marked as
>> UMA_ZONE_NOFREE for ages, probably for a r
On 21 Nov 2014, at 10:19, Robert N. M. Watson wrote:
>> The important thing here is not to loose the momentum and energy which
>> Craig is putting in cleaning up VIMAGE, so if we take the route of
>> eliminating the UMA_ZONE_NOFREE flag (or not), that should be decided
>> with rough consensus an
On 21 Nov 2014, at 09:45, Marko Zec wrote:
>> And, to respond to your more general comment: I agree that a decision
>> about removing the NOFREE flag should be made independently of
>> choices about devirtualisation. The former probably should be sorted
>> out at this point, as eliminating NOFRE
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:07:28 +
"Robert N. M. Watson" wrote:
>
> On 21 Nov 2014, at 09:05, Robert N. M. Watson
> wrote:
>
> > To my mind, the only real concern is whether or not you lose access
> > to resource allocation limits that would previously have been
> > present. On the whole, we'v
On 21 Nov 2014, at 09:05, Robert N. M. Watson wrote:
> To my mind, the only real concern is whether or not you lose access to
> resource allocation limits that would previously have been present. On the
> whole, we've tried to centralise resource limitations on kernel memory
> allocation in U
On 21 Nov 2014, at 08:58, Marko Zec wrote:
> Nevertheless, I'd prefer most of network stack UMA zones to be
> de-virtualized, at least those which cannot cause interference between
> VNETs, and that excludes syncache, reassembly, hostcache and the likes.
> De-virtualization doesn't require touch
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:25:48 +
"Robert N. M. Watson" wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 2014, at 23:29, Marko Zec wrote:
>
> >> Can folks take a look at this?
> >>
> >> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1201
> >
> > All UMA zones used in the network stack have been marked as
> > UMA_ZONE_NOFREE for ages, p
On 20 Nov 2014, at 23:29, Marko Zec wrote:
>> Can folks take a look at this?
>>
>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1201
>
> All UMA zones used in the network stack have been marked as
> UMA_ZONE_NOFREE for ages, probably for a reason, so perhaps it might
> not hurt to provide more insight why and
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:02:46 -0800
Craig Rodrigues wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can folks take a look at this?
>
> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1201
All UMA zones used in the network stack have been marked as
UMA_ZONE_NOFREE for ages, probably for a reason, so perhaps it might
not hurt to provide more ins
Hi,
Can folks take a look at this?
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1201
--
Craig
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
18 matches
Mail list logo
