Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:26:27 -0400 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson <jeff@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r251894 - in head: lib/libmemstat sys/vm Message-ID: <51C0FAB3.7060409@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1306181118310.2005@desktop> References: <201306180450.r5I4oKoY091256@svn.freebsd.org> <51C01964.1000006@freebsd.org> <20130618083733.GQ1400@FreeBSD.org> <51C04C77.7010907@mu.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1306181118310.2005@desktop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/18/13 5:21 PM, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jun 2013, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> On 6/18/13 4:37 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:25:08AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>> A> There used to be a problem with per CPU caches accumulating large >>> amounts >>> A> of items without freeing back to the global (or socket) pool. >>> A> >>> A> Do these updates to UMA change this situation and/or do you have >>> further >>> A> improvements coming up? >>> >>> This is especially a problem with ZFS, which utilizes UMA extensively. >>> >>> IMHO, we need a flag for uma_zcreate() that would disable per CPU >>> caches, so >>> that certain zones (ZFS at least) would have them off. >>> >>> It might be a good idea to force this flag on every zone that has >>> allocation >= >>> then the page size. >>> >> What about people running with 256GB+ ram? Do they also want the per >> cpu caches off? > > If you look at the new system there is a static threshold for the > initial item size required for different sized per-cpu buckets. What > might make sense is to tune this size based on available memory. For > what it's worth I looked at solaris settings and they cache roughly 4x > as much on a per-cpu basis. > > The new system should tend to cache less of large and infrequent > allocations vs the old system. I can't say yet whether it is still a > problem. > > I have an implementation of vmem to replace using vm_maps for > kmem_map, buffer_map, etc. which may resolve the zfs allocation > problems. I hope to get this in over the next few weeks. > That looks really exciting Jeff. Thank you. I'm hoping we can give back some testing numbers when it goes in. -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51C0FAB3.7060409>