Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 06:28:18 +0000 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: "Sam Leffler" <sam@errno.com>, "Peter Jeremy" <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>, "Bosko Milekic" <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> Cc: <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: mb_alloc cache balancer / garbage collector Message-ID: <200302180628.18590.wes@softweyr.com> In-Reply-To: <316301c2d655$cdfb2df0$52557f42@errno.com> References: <20030216213552.A63109@unixdaemons.com> <20030217064130.GA62020@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <316301c2d655$cdfb2df0$52557f42@errno.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 17 February 2003 07:25, Sam Leffler wrote:
> >
> > My only concern is that replishment is reliant on scheduling a
> > process (kernel thread) whilst allocation occurs both at interrupt
> > level and during normal process operation. Is it possible for a
> > heavily loaded system (and a heavy traffic spike) to totally empty
> > the mbuf cache in the interval between the low watermark being
> > reached and the allocator actually running? If so, what happens?
>
> With kernel preemption this should be less of an issue. Presumably the
> balancer thread runs with high enough priority to take preemptive
> control quickly.
Is this an area in which inversion-proof semaphores might be helpful?
--
Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200302180628.18590.wes>