Re: Much improved sosend_*() functions

John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Andre Oppermann wrote this message on Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 23:59 +0200:

w/ 512 byte mbuf and a 2k cluster just to store just 1514 bytes of data,
that's only 60% effeciency wrt to memory usage... so, we currently
waste 40% of memory allocated to mbufs+clusters... Even reducing
mbufs back to 128 or 256 would be a big help, though IPSEC I believe
would have issues...

mbufs are 256 bytes.


Hmmm.. I keep getting this confused... maybe because there was discussion
about increasing this a few years back... or maybe because NOTES has
it as 512.. :)


Hmmm.. If we switched clusters to 1536 bytes in size, we'd be able to
fit 8 in 12k (though I guess for 8k page boxes we'd do 16 in 24k)... The
only issue w/ that would be that a few of the clusters would possibly
split page boundaries... How much this would effect performance would
be an interesting question to answer...

Splitting page boundaries is not an option as it may not be physically
contigous.


unless we do something strange like allocate them contigously... though
that introduces another set of issues....


Just don't overengineer the stuff. Mbufs are only used temporarily and
a bit theoretical waste is not much a problem (so far at least).


Well, I beg to differ... most gige cards grab mbuf+cluster for every
single ring buffer they have.. which is usually 512... so every gige
interface for the most part consumes 1meg of memory that is not
reusable... because if we run out of mbuf+clusters to replace in the
receive ring, we will not tap into the 1meg of mbuf+clusters available
to us... so, if you have a quad gige, that's 4megs wasted, plus w/ the
fact that we could only use ~65% of that memory, that's a lot of memory
wasted...

Yeh, everyone says you have gigs of memory, but do we really want to
be known as the wasteful OS?


Let me try to find some cycles (somewhere) and play with this :-)

R


--
Randall Stewart
NSSTG - Cisco Systems Inc.
803-345-0369 <or> 815-342-5222 (cell)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Much improved sosend_*() functions
    ... see if performance changes there as well? ... IMO it's quite a waste of memory the way we have thigns now, ... mbufs back to 128 or 256 would be a big help, ...
    (freebsd-current)
  • Re: Much improved sosend_*() functions
    ... see if performance changes there as well? ... IMO it's quite a waste of memory the way we have thigns now, ... mbufs back to 128 or 256 would be a big help, ...
    (freebsd-net)
  • Re: Improved INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE
    ... running kernel as well as the config file that was used to build it. ... having the config file loaded strikes me as a waste of RAM. ... In the whole scheme of things, it's not a lot of memory, and ...
    (freebsd-current)
  • Re: Thoughts on efficient bytecode and variable storage (longish)
    ... That would waste space for all not ... > a string length changes, ... and allocate fresh memory for the new content. ...
    (comp.lang.misc)
  • Re: RosAsm injects extra bytes into your data
    ... you wind up wasting 75% of the memory in the data space. ... > Bytes more or Bytes less in a dead File (and even ... on the average you will waste about 2K of memory in your data ... what's not important is saving main RAM. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)