Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:26:54 +0300 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, mav@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r278640 - head/sys/netgraph Message-ID: <20150216192653.GI15484@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <54E1D03A.2070904@freebsd.org> References: <201502122220.t1CMKY8t040498@svn.freebsd.org> <20150214000540.GI15484@FreeBSD.org> <54E1D03A.2070904@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 03:10:50AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: J> On 2/13/15 4:05 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: J> > Hi! J> > J> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:20:34PM +0000, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: J> > T> Author: glebius J> > T> Date: Thu Feb 12 22:20:34 2015 J> > T> New Revision: 278640 J> > T> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/278640 J> > T> J> > T> Log: J> > T> Revise default limit for maximum of netgraph data items. J> > T> With modern internet speeds the limit can be reached even J> > T> on a single L2TP link. J> > J> > Actually any ng_item of data type requires an mbuf to be connected J> > to it, and thus I suggest to use mbuf limits to drive ng_item limits. J> > J> > If we got an item leak with mbufs being properly freed, then we've J> > got a bug to fix, and any limit won't work in long run time. I never J> > evidenced such a bug, but there complaints on hitting limit at J> > traffic bursts. As said, with previous 512 item limit I experienced J> > that even on a laptop. J> > J> > Any objections on removing the limit, guys? J> maybe derived from it, but not the same number. J> maybe change the systctl to define the relationship? I guess you want to have ng_items limit smaller than mbuf limit? How smaller? What problem are we actually guarding against putting this limit? -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150216192653.GI15484>