From owner-freebsd-current Tue Mar 4 15:42:11 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0459037B401 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:42:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from silver.he.iki.fi (silver.he.iki.fi [193.64.42.241]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67ED43F75 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:42:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pete@he.iki.fi) Received: from PHE (silver.he.iki.fi [193.64.42.241]) by silver.he.iki.fi (8.12.8/8.11.4) with SMTP id h24Ng7lL014385; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:42:07 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from pete@he.iki.fi) Message-ID: <0e3701c2e2a7$aaa2b180$932a40c1@PHE> From: "Petri Helenius" To: "Bosko Milekic" Cc: References: <0ded01c2e295$cbef0940$932a40c1@PHE> <20030304164449.A10136@unixdaemons.com> <0e1b01c2e29c$d1fefdc0$932a40c1@PHE> <20030304173809.A10373@unixdaemons.com> <0e2b01c2e2a3$96fd3b40$932a40c1@PHE> <20030304182133.A10561@unixdaemons.com> Subject: Re: mbuf cache Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:42:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > This does look odd... maybe there's a leak somewhere... does "in use" > go back down to a much lower number eventually? What kind of test are > you running? "in pool" means that that's the number in the cache > while "in use" means that that's the number out of the cache > currently being used by the system; but if you're telling me that > there's no way usage could be that high while you ran the netstat, > either there's a serious leak somewhere or I got the stats wrong > (anyone else notice irregular stats?) > I think I figured this, the "em" driver is allocating mbuf for each receive descriptor regardless if it´s needed or not. Does this cause a performance issue if there is 8000 mbufs in use and we get 100k-150k frees and allocates a second (for every packet?) (I have the em driver configured for 4096 receive descriptors) > Another thing I find odd about those stats is that you've set the high > watermark to 8192, which means that in the next free, you should be > moving buckets to the general cache... see if that's really > happening... The low watermark doesn't affect anything right now. Nothing seems to be moving to the GEN pool. > > Can you give me more details on the exact type of test you're running? > Let's move this to -current instead of -current and -net please (feel > free to trim the one you want), getting 3 copies of the same > message all the time is kinda annoying. :-( > I´m running a snort-like application with the interface getting receive only packets. It can either connect to a netgraph node or use bpf, both seem to have similar performance (most CPU is used elsewhere) as the email I sent previously had listed. Pete To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message