Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:37:36 -0500 From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> To: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf cache Message-ID: <20030307093736.A18611@unixdaemons.com> In-Reply-To: <001201c2e2ee$54eedfb0$932a40c1@PHE>; from pete@he.iki.fi on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:07:35AM %2B0200 References: <0ded01c2e295$cbef0940$932a40c1@PHE> <20030304164449.A10136@unixdaemons.com> <0e1b01c2e29c$d1fefdc0$932a40c1@PHE> <20030304173809.A10373@unixdaemons.com> <0e2b01c2e2a3$96fd3b40$932a40c1@PHE> <20030304182133.A10561@unixdaemons.com> <0e3701c2e2a7$aaa2b180$932a40c1@PHE> <20030304190851.A10853@unixdaemons.com> <001201c2e2ee$54eedfb0$932a40c1@PHE>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:07:35AM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote: > I think there is nothing really special about the driver there? The mbufs > are allocated in the driver and then freed when other parts in the kernel > are done with the packet? The issue I´m having is that mb_free takes > almost four times the cycles than mb_alloc for each call which does > not seem to be right? I shouldn´t be having lock contention in mb_alloc > because the whole thing is still under Giant, right? There's probably a tightloop of frees going on somewhere. It's tough for me to analyze this as I cannot reproduce it. Have you tried running your tests over loopback to see if the same thing happens? If so, and it does, can you please explain how to exactly replicate the test? -- Bosko Milekic * bmilekic@unixdaemons.com * bmilekic@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030307093736.A18611>