Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:56:21 -0500
From:      Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com>
To:        Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>
Cc:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: mb_alloc cache balancer / garbage collector
Message-ID:  <20030217095621.C64558@unixdaemons.com>
In-Reply-To: <xzp3cmne4x8.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>; from des@ofug.org on Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 08:34:43AM %2B0100
References:  <20030216213552.A63109@unixdaemons.com> <xzp3cmne4x8.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 08:34:43AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> writes:
> >   What does this mean for us on the long term?  One of the things it
> >   means is that we continue to have a high performance scalable network
> >   buffer allocations but while also being able to free resources to the
> >   rest of the system.
> 
> Does this render nmbclusters obsolete?

  Heh.  Another good question.  Right now, no.  One could argue though
  that it's now technically OK to remove that limit but, personally, I
  think I would still argue that we should keep it.  Several reasons:

  1) It's good to cap the amount of virtual address space reserved for
  network buffers; we've seen over the years that a lot of
  resource-exhausting DoS attacks relied on a code path in the network
  code that could be used to exhaust system resources by over-allocating
  to network buffers.  At least the virtual address cap allows us to
  eventually level out and - now with the cache balancer/garbage
  collector - recover completely.

  2) A few optimizations, notably the one regarding mbuf cluster
  reference counts, relies on mbuf clusters coming from a contiguous
  virtual address map.  Then you can do things like keep an array of
  reference counters for clusters and index into it based on the virtual
  address of the cluster for reference counting.  I know I've been
  knocking my head against my desk trying to figure out if there's a
  better way to do reference counting while maintaining the same level
  of performance (and I'm sure others have to, judging from countless
  discussions and the amount of times this code has changed), but we
  haven't had that G-dly revelation yet. :-)

> DES
> -- 
> Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org

-- 
Bosko Milekic * bmilekic@unixdaemons.com * bmilekic@FreeBSD.org

"If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall
 find that we have lost the future."

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030217095621.C64558>