Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:17:46 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson <jeff@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: zfs + uma Message-ID: <4C9C96EA.9060100@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4C99AF63.3000900@freebsd.org> References: <4C93236B.4050906@freebsd.org> <4C935F56.4030903@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009181221560.86826@fledge.watson.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009181135430.23448@desktop> <4C95C804.1010701@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009182225050.23448@desktop> <4C95CCDA.7010007@freebsd.org> <4C984E90.60507@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009202037260.23448@desktop> <AANLkTimy=2WUcH59R5spajrKkUYQnii9SD1ZDdMymNC%2B@mail.gmail.com> <4C99AF63.3000900@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 22/09/2010 10:25 Andriy Gapon said the following: > 2. patch that attempts to implement Jeff's three suggestions; I've tested > per-CPU cache size adaptive behavior, works well, but haven't tested per-CPU > cache draining yet: > http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/uma-2.diff Now I've fully tested this change, found out that it is a very bad idea to call cache_drain/cache_drain2 on UMA_ZFLAG_INTERNAL zones, and updated the patch. Everything seems to work as expected. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C9C96EA.9060100>