On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
The UMA zone can't be made smaller than it is, while IP port ranges
can vary in both directions.
Hm, it can't be made smaller because we're using UMA_ZONE_NOFREE... why are
we using that? Shouldn't locking handle that, rwatson? :)
Hm, it's been UMA_ZONE_NOFREE since day one. The reason may or may not be
relevant after all the work rwatson has done with locking.
But even if the actual backing memory is not freed, we can still reduce
the max for the zone, thereby solving the ephemeral port shortage problem.
We'll fail to free a few K of ram, but that's no big deal.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
