Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:53:23 +0400
From:      "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@yandex-team.ru>, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: [CFT] ipfw SMP-ready dynamic states
Message-ID:  <50B4C5D3.4070701@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20121127055444.GR84121@glebius.int.ru>
References:  <50A29F57.6090701@yandex-team.ru> <20121114154741.GE29772@nginx.com> <50B3ED9B.1070500@FreeBSD.org> <20121127055444.GR84121@glebius.int.ru>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27.11.2012 09:54, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 02:30:51AM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> A> On 14.11.2012 19:47, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> A> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:28:23PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> A> > A>  So, we can do the following:
> A> > A>  1) lock increments/decrements via some separate mutex
> A> > A>  2) do nothing
> A> > A>  3) take some combined approach:
> A> >
> A> > 4) Take it via uma_zone_getcur(ipfw_dyn_rule_zone);
> A> It acquired zone lock to collect per-cpu item data, but
> A> uma_zone_set_max() did the trick.
> A> >
> A>
> A> Patch updated:
> A> * UMA zone is now allocated per-VNET instance
>
> Why? This only leads to more waste in allocator.
To be able to enforce state limit per-instance as it currently works.
>


-- 
WBR, Alexander





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50B4C5D3.4070701>