Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:54:44 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@yandex-team.ru>, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [CFT] ipfw SMP-ready dynamic states Message-ID: <20121127055444.GR84121@glebius.int.ru> In-Reply-To: <50B3ED9B.1070500@FreeBSD.org> References: <50A29F57.6090701@yandex-team.ru> <20121114154741.GE29772@nginx.com> <50B3ED9B.1070500@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 02:30:51AM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: A> On 14.11.2012 19:47, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: A> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:28:23PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: A> > A> So, we can do the following: A> > A> 1) lock increments/decrements via some separate mutex A> > A> 2) do nothing A> > A> 3) take some combined approach: A> > A> > 4) Take it via uma_zone_getcur(ipfw_dyn_rule_zone); A> It acquired zone lock to collect per-cpu item data, but A> uma_zone_set_max() did the trick. A> > A> A> Patch updated: A> * UMA zone is now allocated per-VNET instance Why? This only leads to more waste in allocator. -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121127055444.GR84121>