On 2/16/15 11:26 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 03:10:50AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
J> On 2/13/15 4:05 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
J> > Hi!
J> >
J> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:20:34PM +0000, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
J> > T> Author: glebius
J> > T> Date: Thu Feb 12 22:20:34 2015
J> > T> New Revision: 278640
J> > T> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/278640
J> > T>
J> > T> Log:
J> > T> Revise default limit for maximum of netgraph data items.
J> > T> With modern internet speeds the limit can be reached even
J> > T> on a single L2TP link.
J> >
J> > Actually any ng_item of data type requires an mbuf to be connected
J> > to it, and thus I suggest to use mbuf limits to drive ng_item limits.
J> >
J> > If we got an item leak with mbufs being properly freed, then we've
J> > got a bug to fix, and any limit won't work in long run time. I never
J> > evidenced such a bug, but there complaints on hitting limit at
J> > traffic bursts. As said, with previous 512 item limit I experienced
J> > that even on a laptop.
J> >
J> > Any objections on removing the limit, guys?
J> maybe derived from it, but not the same number.
J> maybe change the systctl to define the relationship?
I guess you want to have ng_items limit smaller than mbuf limit?
How smaller?
What problem are we actually guarding against putting this limit?
general paranoia, and remember 3rd parties write netgraph nodes.
I just would limit to say 50% by default and have a sysctl for 1-100 %
so netgraph will not lose all mbufs
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
