On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 06:20:37PM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Robert Watson writes: > > > > Yeah -- I've been trying to avoid committing this patch since atomic > > operations hurt the P4 quite a bit more than one would hope. We already > > do MPSAFE stats in UMA, so an interesting question might be whether these > > stats are redundant to stats already gathered and we can use them instead. > > One of the theoretical advantages of mbuma is that mbufs become just > > another case of existing slab allocated memory resources, so I would think > > most of the interesting stats should be there. > > Getting the stats from uma seems like the right thing to do in the > long run, but the atomic stats is a low-risk way to avoid bogus > mbuf leak reports from 5.3-RELEASE users. I ran into this last week and kept wondering how I was losing so many mbufs, then searching the kernel for possible scenarios... finding none finally matching up vmstat -z output with netstat -m to clue myself in. We could really easily just add to netstat -m warnx("value for SMP systems may be misleading; see manpage"); -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green_at_FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\Received on Thu Oct 28 2004 - 02:53:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:19 UTC