From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jul 3 11:52: 1 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8615F37C1BD for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:51:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA07943; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:51:35 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Bosko Milekic Cc: David Greenman , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Jul 2000 13:39:13 EDT." Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 20:51:35 +0200 Message-ID: <7941.962650295@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , 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