Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:26:33 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: rwatson@freebsd.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in_pcb.c tcp_subr.c tcp_timer.c tcp_var.h Message-ID: <20060912002456.I43498@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20060912001916.S43498@odysseus.silby.com> References: <200609061356.k86DuZ0w016069@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060906091204.B6691@odysseus.silby.com> <20060906143204.GQ40020@FreeBSD.org> <20060906093553.L6691@odysseus.silby.com> <20060906150506.GA7069@rambler-co.ru> <20060911005435.A23530@odysseus.silby.com> <20060911142703.GF27667@FreeBSD.org> <20060912001916.S43498@odysseus.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Mike Silbersack wrote: > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > >> The UMA zone can't be made smaller than it is, while IP port ranges >> can vary in both directions. > > Hm, it can't be made smaller because we're using UMA_ZONE_NOFREE... why are > we using that? Shouldn't locking handle that, rwatson? :) Hm, it's been UMA_ZONE_NOFREE since day one. The reason may or may not be relevant after all the work rwatson has done with locking. But even if the actual backing memory is not freed, we can still reduce the max for the zone, thereby solving the ephemeral port shortage problem. We'll fail to free a few K of ram, but that's no big deal. Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060912002456.I43498>