Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 20:51:35 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@dsuper.net> Cc: David Greenman <dg@root.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Message-ID: <7941.962650295@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 03 Jul 2000 13:39:13 EDT." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007031238150.412-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007031238150.412-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com>, B osko Milekic writes: > When I posted the initial diff, I provided such data. I'll repeat: a > good example is at: http://24.201.62.9/stats/mbuf.html Considering the prominence of DoS attacks and similar, I think it makes a lot of sense to be able to free the memory again, and if the hysteresis you have built in means that there is no measurable performance impact I think you will face no objections. Is it possible to auto-tune min_on_avail somehow ? What if instead you made it free only when more than 50% of the memory allocated from the map was unused ? Could that freeing be done by a timeout routine which runs every N seconds ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7941.962650295>