Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:44:49 -0500 From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> To: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf cache Message-ID: <20030304164449.A10136@unixdaemons.com> In-Reply-To: <0ded01c2e295$cbef0940$932a40c1@PHE>; from pete@he.iki.fi on Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:34:11PM %2B0200 References: <0ded01c2e295$cbef0940$932a40c1@PHE>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:34:11PM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote: > > I did some profiling on -CURRENT from a few days back, and I think I havenīt > figured the new tunables out or the code is not doing what itīs supposed to > or Iīm asking more than it is supposed to do but it seems that mb_free > is being quite wasteful... > > Any pointers to how the new high/low watermark tunables should be used? > > Is it normal that after almost all traffic has been stopped there is still 8k+ > mbufs in "cache"? > > Pete Yes, it's normal. The commit log clearly states that the new watermarks do nothing for now. I have a patch that changes that but I haven't committed it yet because I left for vacation last Sunday and I only returned early this Monday. Since then, I've been too busy to clean up and commit it. In about a week or so you should notice a difference. -- Bosko Milekic * bmilekic@unixdaemons.com * bmilekic@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030304164449.A10136>