Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:40:26 -0800
From:      Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>
To:        Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
Cc:        Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: TCP Performance Graphs
Message-ID:  <3C0818EA.B34721FB@mindspring.com>
References:  <20011130141100.B90969@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20011130112215.H30981@iguana.aciri.org> <20011130135042.G46769@elvis.mu.org> <20011130135402.H46769@elvis.mu.org> <20011130125839.A88302@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20011130102928.E30981@iguana.aciri.org> <20011130141100.B90969@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20011130112215.H30981@iguana.aciri.org> <20011130135042.G46769@elvis.mu.org> <20011130171418.B96592@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20011130163405.O46769@elvis.mu.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Hmm, well the GENERIC default is some mathematical operation on
> maxusers.  We really ought to make this scale as a default relative
> to the amount of ram in the system, rather than some low hardcoded
> value.  NetBSD has some stuff for this in their buffercache sizing
> algorithm in netbsd-stable.  It might be worth checking out, the
> formula is quite smart such that it has a decent size when system
> ram is low, then for each meg above X it increases it by some
> percentage.  I find it to be too low, but whatever. :)


This is an arbitrarily hard problem to solve correctly.

The problem boils down to the inability to do allocations at
interrupt, unless there is a prereserved mapping backing
store already in place.

This works for systems where the memory size << KVA space,
but when you stick 4G in a machine, the code in the kernel is
way, way off (the machdep.c calculations for swap page mappings
and others go off the scale, unfortunately).

I think that what needs to happen is a reconsideration of the
memory allocation system, almost entirely.  THe seperation
needs to be into swap path and non-swap path, rather than into
allocable at interrupt time, and not.

I hate to suggest it, but... perhaps a move away from type
stable memory would not be a bad thing.

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C0818EA.B34721FB>