On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Bosko Milekic wrote: BM> Ahhhh. Given the explanation, the small size of the limits makes a BM> lot more sense now. Previously, the limit probably enforced the BM> actual number of cached (pre-allocated) items in the pool. So, it was BM> more than just a "limit," it was a cache size parameter. That is BM> probably why its size was kept relatively small. In the zone setting, BM> the limit can easily be made larger or removed altogether (if there is BM> no danger of that structure consuming all of kernel memory). No, there isn't. VCCs are usually limited by the interface card to a couple of thousand. BM>> How do you think about adding a paragraph for uma_zone_set_max to the man BM>> page?: BM>> BM>> An upper limit of items in the zone can be specified with a call to BM>> uma_zone_set_max. This limits the total number of items which includes: BM>> allocated items, free items and free items in the per-cpu caches. On BM>> systems with more than one CPU it may not be possible to allocate the BM>> specified number of items, because all of the remaining free items may BM>> be in the caches of the other CPUs when the limit is hit. BM> BM> Given that it has obviously led to confusion, this sort of change to BM> the man page would be encouraging. BM> BM> Perhaps you would also ammend to it the purpose of uma_zone_set_max(), BM> as it currently stands: BM> BM> "The purpose of uma_zone_set_max() is to limit the maximum BM> amount of memory that the system can dedicate toward the zone BM> specified by the 'zone' argument." <insert your text from above here> BM> BM> Would you like to commit the change? Ok, I'll commit it. Regards, harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private brandt_at_fokus.fraunhofer.de, harti_at_freebsd.orgReceived on Mon Jul 21 2003 - 05:04:49 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:16 UTC