Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:00:42 +0200 From: "Petri Helenius" <pete@he.iki.fi> To: "Bosko Milekic" <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> Cc: <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: mbuf cache Message-ID: <008101c2e4ba$53d875a0$932a40c1@PHE> References: <0ded01c2e295$cbef0940$932a40c1@PHE> <20030304164449.A10136@unixdaemons.com> <0e1b01c2e29c$d1fefdc0$932a40c1@PHE> <20030304173809.A10373@unixdaemons.com> <0e2b01c2e2a3$96fd3b40$932a40c1@PHE> <20030304182133.A10561@unixdaemons.com> <0e3701c2e2a7$aaa2b180$932a40c1@PHE> <20030304190851.A10853@unixdaemons.com> <001201c2e2ee$54eedfb0$932a40c1@PHE> <20030307093736.A18611@unixdaemons.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> There's probably a tightloop of frees going on somewhere. It's tough > for me to analyze this as I cannot reproduce it. Have you tried > running your tests over loopback to see if the same thing happens? What is the definition of "tightloop"? The received packet mbufs are freed when the packets get processed/discarded which happens once for a packet. The received packet rate is 50000-150000 packets per second. > > If so, and it does, can you please explain how to exactly replicate > the test? Mirror a port with ~300-800Mbps of IP traffic to an em port. Just enable promisc and monitor so it drops the packets after interrupt processing. The overhead beyond that is neglible compared to mb_free. Pete To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?008101c2e4ba$53d875a0$932a40c1>