Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 05:01:32 -0700 From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> To: wpaul@FreeBSD.ORG (Bill Paul) Cc: bright@wintelcom.net (Alfred Perlstein), behanna@zbzoom.net, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, KuriyaKK@cpf.navy.mil Subject: Re: xl driver again? Re: mbuf leakage on 4.1.1-STABLE Message-ID: <200010131202.e9DC2G413278@cwsys.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:42:30 PDT." <20001012174230.C471737B502@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20001012174230.C471737B502@hub.freebsd.org>, Bill Paul writes: > The xl driver never holds more than 128 mbuf clusters in the receive ring. > Whenever a new packet comes in, it sends one of the mbufs out and replaces > it with a new one. IT DOESN'T HOLD ONTO THEM. It will however complain if > it can't allocate a replacement mbuf. What it will do is allocate them very > fast, and sometimes mbufs do get held inside the kernel for too long a > time. It seems to be worse in cases where you have a lot of UDP traffic > or a large number of open TCP connections. My only suggestion for now > is to add more mbufs by bumping NMBCLUSTERS. Is there a reason why the kernel might hold on to mbufs for "too long a time" (I take that to mean longer than it should)? Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Team Leader, Sun/DEC Team Internet: Cy.Schubert@osg.gov.bc.ca Open Systems Group, ITSD, ISTA Province of BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010131202.e9DC2G413278>