From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Feb 17 2:29:21 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB8937B401 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 02:29:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [205.130.220.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2422343F85 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 02:29:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost) by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HATIa25230; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 05:29:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 05:29:18 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Roberson To: Bosko Milekic Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mb_alloc cache balancer / garbage collector In-Reply-To: <20030216213552.A63109@unixdaemons.com> Message-ID: <20030217052758.E85957-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Bosko Milekic wrote: > > I've finally gotten around to implementing the cache balancer/garbage > collector for the mbuf allocator. Actually, it's been sitting in a > local tree for a while but I finally got one of my -CURRENT machines > back up and was able to debug it. > Bosko, this is great stuff. This leads me to wonder though, are we ever going to unify mb alloc and uma? It seems that it would make sense to do so. If the performance is not as good with UMA then it may make sense to keep mb_alloc. Especially now that it can reclaim memory. Have you looked at catching the low memory callback to drain your caches? Cheers, Jeff To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message