Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:01:09 +1000 (EST) From: lukem.freebsd@cse.unsw.edu.au To: Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CPU utilisation cap? Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0410251100210.6020@wagner.orchestra.cse.unsw.EDU.AU> In-Reply-To: <1F92711A-238A-11D9-9171-000A95C705DC@chittenden.org> References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0410211419480.8238@wagner.orchestra.cse.unsw.EDU.AU> <1F92711A-238A-11D9-9171-000A95C705DC@chittenden.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Sean Chittenden wrote: > There are two things that come to mind. The first being a patch that should > have been applied in time for 5.2, but I forget the timing of the releases. > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/htdig/cvs-src/2003-October/012628.html > > IIRC, there was another commit that made a similar change specifically in the > handling of UDP packets, such that it used a TAILQ append instead of > traversing a linked list. For some reason I think this happened after 5.2, > but I'm not able to find high nor low of the commit and could be pulling said > memory into existence. Too many commits to keep track of. While this would reduce CPU utilisation at a given throughput, it doesn't account for the 20% of CPU time that is available but never used. -- Luke
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.61.0410251100210.6020>