From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 17 13:20:17 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38BF71065779 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:20:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from mail.cksoft.de (mail.cksoft.de [IPv6:2001:4068:10::3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB95B8FC0A for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:20:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (amavis.fra.cksoft.de [192.168.74.71]) by mail.cksoft.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD1C41C75D; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:20:15 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cksoft.de Received: from mail.cksoft.de ([192.168.74.103]) by localhost (amavis.fra.cksoft.de [192.168.74.71]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YrHo-H5OCB6K; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:20:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.cksoft.de (Postfix, from userid 66) id 3368E41C75C; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:20:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net (maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net [10.111.66.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8C94448F3; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:17:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:17:57 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" X-X-Sender: bz@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net To: Marko Zec In-Reply-To: <201011171345.06789.zec@icir.org> Message-ID: <20101117131438.I24596@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <201011170627.28025.thierry.herbelot@free.fr> <20101117055208.S24596@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <201011171345.06789.zec@icir.org> X-OpenPGP-Key: 0x14003F198FEFA3E77207EE8D2B58B8F83CCF1842 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: FreeBSD virtualization mailing list Subject: Re: VIMAGE: Freed UMA keg was not empty X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:20:17 -0000 On Wed, 17 Nov 2010, Marko Zec wrote: > Actually, we never seriously discussed or revisited the issue with separate > UMA pools for each vnet instance. > > My original motivation when O introduced separate UMA pools was primarily in > making it easier to spot resource leaks, and to prove the correctness of the > whole VIMAGE / VNET thing. Having more or less achieved those goals, perhaps > the time has come to move on. Having said that, and given that the current > VIMAGE resource allocation model is far from being optimal (a lot of memory > sits reserved but 99% unused, and cannot be reclaimed later on vnet > teardown), perhaps it's time that we reconsider using unified UMA pools. I think there is a misunderstanding here; it can be reclaimed by the time we have the teardown properly sorted out and it will immediately help normal non-VIMAGE systems under memory pressure as well. The problem is that, at least for TCP (and UDP in one special case as I found after lots of testing), we are no there yet. After that, when it comes to resource usage, I am still wondering how trasz' resource limits will plug into that. By the time we can see those coming together we should be able to decide whether to go left or right. /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb Welcome a new stage of life. Going to jail sucks -- All my daemons like it! http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/jails.html