Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:49:15 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in_pcb.c tcp_subr.c tcp_timer.c tcp_var.h Message-ID: <20060906093553.L6691@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20060906143204.GQ40020@FreeBSD.org> References: <200609061356.k86DuZ0w016069@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060906091204.B6691@odysseus.silby.com> <20060906143204.GQ40020@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Then we found the CPU hog in the in_pcblookup_local(). I've added > counters and gathered stats via ktr(4). When a lag occured, the > following data was gathered: > > 112350 return 0x0, iterations 0, expired 0 > 112349 return 0xc5154888, iterations 19998, expired 745 Ah, I think I see what's happening. It's probably spinning because the heuristic isn't triggering on each entry, that doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is that it's expiring more than one entry - my original intent with that code was for it to free just one entry, which it would then use... meaning that I goofed up the implementation. I had been thinking of rewriting that heuristic anyway, I'm sure that I can go back and find something far more efficient if you give me a few days. (Or a week.) > 1.78 hasn't yet been merged to RELENG_6, and we faced the problem on > RELENG_6 boxes where the periodic merging cycle is present. So the > problem is not in 1.78 of tcp_timer.c. We have a lot of tcptw entries > because we have a very big connection rate, not because they are > leaked or not purged. Ok, just checking. With this code removed, are you not seeing the web frontends delaying new connections when they can't find a free port to use? Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060906093553.L6691>