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>