Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Would it be better if my patch used the PAGE_SIZE clusters instead
> > of
> > the 16K ones? Then it should not be affected by memory
> > defragmentation.
> > Thanks for shedding some light into this area?
> >
Well, I ran into the threads stuck on "btalloc" when I used PAGE_SIZE
clusters mixed with MCLBYTES clusters and from what I could figure, it
was a kernel address space fragmentation issue.

I would guess that PAGE_SIZE clusters aren't as bad as 16K clusters w.r.t.
fragmentation, but I believe that they could still be an issue. (My testing
was on a 256Mbyte i386, so I can't say if amd64 systems will have a problem,
just that small 32bit arches will.)


> > --HPS
> >
> Hi,
> Updated patch attached.
> --HPS
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to