From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 21 07:04:49 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B13A37B401 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhub.fokus.fraunhofer.de (mailhub.fokus.fraunhofer.de [193.174.154.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE5BB43F75 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:04:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de) Received: from beagle (beagle [193.175.132.100])h6LE4jv26629; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 16:04:45 +0200 (MEST) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 16:04:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt To: Bosko Milekic In-Reply-To: <20030721100422.GA45773@technokratis.com> Message-ID: <20030721160245.M83041@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <20030718185122.N14232@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <3F198E7E.4040309@fokus.fhg.de> <20030721085426.A48033@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20030721153144.Q83041@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20030721100422.GA45773@technokratis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMP problem with uma_zalloc X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: harti@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:04:50 -0000 On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Bosko Milekic wrote: BM> Ahhhh. Given the explanation, the small size of the limits makes a BM> lot more sense now. Previously, the limit probably enforced the BM> actual number of cached (pre-allocated) items in the pool. So, it was BM> more than just a "limit," it was a cache size parameter. That is BM> probably why its size was kept relatively small. In the zone setting, BM> the limit can easily be made larger or removed altogether (if there is BM> no danger of that structure consuming all of kernel memory). No, there isn't. VCCs are usually limited by the interface card to a couple of thousand. BM>> How do you think about adding a paragraph for uma_zone_set_max to the man BM>> page?: BM>> BM>> An upper limit of items in the zone can be specified with a call to BM>> uma_zone_set_max. This limits the total number of items which includes: BM>> allocated items, free items and free items in the per-cpu caches. On BM>> systems with more than one CPU it may not be possible to allocate the BM>> specified number of items, because all of the remaining free items may BM>> be in the caches of the other CPUs when the limit is hit. BM> BM> Given that it has obviously led to confusion, this sort of change to BM> the man page would be encouraging. BM> BM> Perhaps you would also ammend to it the purpose of uma_zone_set_max(), BM> as it currently stands: BM> BM> "The purpose of uma_zone_set_max() is to limit the maximum BM> amount of memory that the system can dedicate toward the zone BM> specified by the 'zone' argument." BM> BM> Would you like to commit the change? Ok, I'll commit it. Regards, harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de, harti@freebsd.org