Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:42:05 +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: <0e3701c2e2a7$aaa2b180$932a40c1@PHE> References: <0ded01c2e295$cbef0940$932a40c1@PHE> <20030304164449.A10136@unixdaemons.com> <0e1b01c2e29c$d1fefdc0$932a40c1@PHE> <20030304173809.A10373@unixdaemons.com> <0e2b01c2e2a3$96fd3b40$932a40c1@PHE> <20030304182133.A10561@unixdaemons.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > This does look odd... maybe there's a leak somewhere... does "in use" > go back down to a much lower number eventually? What kind of test are > you running? "in pool" means that that's the number in the cache > while "in use" means that that's the number out of the cache > currently being used by the system; but if you're telling me that > there's no way usage could be that high while you ran the netstat, > either there's a serious leak somewhere or I got the stats wrong > (anyone else notice irregular stats?) > I think I figured this, the "em" driver is allocating mbuf for each receive descriptor regardless if it´s needed or not. Does this cause a performance issue if there is 8000 mbufs in use and we get 100k-150k frees and allocates a second (for every packet?) (I have the em driver configured for 4096 receive descriptors) > Another thing I find odd about those stats is that you've set the high > watermark to 8192, which means that in the next free, you should be > moving buckets to the general cache... see if that's really > happening... The low watermark doesn't affect anything right now. Nothing seems to be moving to the GEN pool. > > Can you give me more details on the exact type of test you're running? > Let's move this to -current instead of -current and -net please (feel > free to trim the one you want), getting 3 copies of the same > message all the time is kinda annoying. :-( > I´m running a snort-like application with the interface getting receive only packets. It can either connect to a netgraph node or use bpf, both seem to have similar performance (most CPU is used elsewhere) as the email I sent previously had listed. 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?0e3701c2e2a7$aaa2b180$932a40c1>