From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Oct 13 10: 8:44 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC46437B66C for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:08:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e9DH8aU18532; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:08:36 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: xl driver again? Re: mbuf leakage on 4.1.1-STABLE Message-ID: <20001013100836.I272@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20001012174230.C471737B502@hub.freebsd.org> <200010131202.e9DC2G413278@cwsys.cwsent.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <200010131202.e9DC2G413278@cwsys.cwsent.com>; from Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca on Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:01:32AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group [001013 05:03] wrote: > > Is there a reason why the kernel might hold on to mbufs for "too long a > time" (I take that to mean longer than it should)? There are many reasons, one is that you may be sending data that hasn't been ack'd and might need retransmition. There may also be a lot of data 'in flight' meaning that one reading data from the network and the reader is slower than the writer which keeps mbufs tied down in the socket buffers. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message