From owner-svn-src-user@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 12 15:52:58 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-user@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6B9E72; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:52:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73BF18FC17; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:52:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.1.17] (c-67-180-208-218.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.208.218]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1A0D1A3CE6; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:52:50 -0800 (PST) References: <201211120847.qAC8lEAM086331@svn.freebsd.org> <50A0D420.4030106@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <50A0D420.4030106@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <0039CD42-C909-41D0-B0A7-7DFBC5B8D839@mu.org> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B206) From: Alfred Perlstein Subject: Re: svn commit: r242910 - in user/andre/tcp_workqueue/sys: kern sys Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:52:48 -0800 To: Andre Oppermann Cc: "src-committers@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-user@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: svn-src-user@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the experimental " user" src tree" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:52:58 -0000 If maxusers is set (loader.conf/config(8)) can you please revert to maxusers= based limits? Sent from my iPhone On Nov 12, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 12.11.2012 09:47, Andre Oppermann wrote: >> Author: andre >> Date: Mon Nov 12 08:47:13 2012 >> New Revision: 242910 >> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/242910 >>=20 >> Log: >> Base the mbuf related limits on the available physical memory or >> kernel memory, whichever is lower. >=20 > The commit message is a bit terse so I'm going to explain in more > detail: >=20 > The overall mbuf related memory limit must be set so that mbufs > (and clusters of various sizes) can't exhaust physical RAM or KVM. >=20 > I've chosen a limit of half the physical RAM or KVM (whichever is > lower) as the baseline. In any normal scenario we want to leave > at least half of the physmem/kvm for other kernel functions and > userspace to prevent it from swapping like hell. Via a tunable > it can be upped to at most 3/4 of physmem/kvm. >=20 > Out of the overall mbuf memory limit I've chosen 2K clusters, 4K > (page size) clusters to get 1/4 each because these are the most > heavily used mbuf sizes. 2K clusters are used for MTU 1500 ethernet > inbound packets. 4K clusters are used whenever possible for sends > on sockets and thus outbound packets. >=20 > The larger cluster sizes of 9K and 16K are limited to 1/6 of the > overall mbuf memory limit. Again, when jumbo MTU's are used these > large clusters will end up only on the inbound path. They are not > used on outbound, there it's still 4K. Yes, that will stay that > way because otherwise we run into lots of complications in the > stack. And it really isn't a problem, so don't make a scene. >=20 > Previously the normal mbufs (256B) weren't limited at all. This > is wrong as there are certain places in the kernel that on allocation > failure of clusters try to piece together their packet from smaller > mbufs. The mbuf limit is the number of all other mbuf sizes together > plus some more to allow for standalone mbufs (ACK for example) and > to send off a copy of a cluster. FYI: Every cluster eventually also > has an mbuf associated with it. >=20 > Unfortunately there isn't a way to set an overall limit for all > mbuf memory together as UMA doesn't support such a limiting. >=20 > Lets work out a few examples on sizing: >=20 > 1GB KVM: > 512MB limit for mbufs > 419,430 mbufs > 65,536 2K mbuf clusters > 32,768 4K mbuf clusters > 9,709 9K mbuf clusters > 5,461 16K mbuf clusters >=20 > 16GB RAM: > 8GB limit for mbufs > 33,554,432 mbufs > 1,048,576 2K mbuf clusters > 524,288 4K mbuf clusters > 155,344 9K mbuf clusters > 87,381 16K mbuf clusters >=20 > These defaults should be sufficient for event the most demanding > network loads. If you do run into these limits you probably know > exactly what you are doing and you are expected to tune those > values for your particular purpose. >=20 > There is a side-issue with maxfiles as it relates to the maximum > number of sockets that can be opened at the same time. With web > servers and proxy caches of these days there may be some 100K or > more sockets open. Hence I've divorced maxfiles from maxusers as > well. There is a relationship of maxfiles with the callout callwheel > though which has to be investigated some more to prevent ridiculous > values from being chosen. >=20 > --=20 > Andre >=20