From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed May 22 21:25:57 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 716F81F09
 for <net@freebsd.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 21:25:57 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from luigi@onelab2.iet.unipi.it)
Received: from onelab2.iet.unipi.it (onelab2.iet.unipi.it [131.114.59.238])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39021827
 for <net@freebsd.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 21:25:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by onelab2.iet.unipi.it (Postfix, from userid 275)
 id BEA427300A; Wed, 22 May 2013 23:28:31 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 23:28:31 +0200
From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>
To: Haven Hash <havenster@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: surprise surprise (VM related) [luigi@FreeBSD.org: svn commit:
 r250911 - head/sys/kern]
Message-ID: <20130522212831.GA744@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
References: <20130522164244.GB95808@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
 <CAMUJtRPKmsv9nxS4gSPTZUi1bjvgK03P-TS7D4cEcCt7MNO5Lg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMUJtRPKmsv9nxS4gSPTZUi1bjvgK03P-TS7D4cEcCt7MNO5Lg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: net@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 21:25:57 -0000

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:06:40PM -0700, Haven Hash wrote:
> I notice the commentary by poll_burst_max stating it's suitability to
> 100Mbit net, perhaps that could use an increase in its default value as
> well?

maybe later. I am not sure who is using polling and on what platforms,
so i'd rather leave the defaults alone for the time being.

cheers
luigi