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.) rick > > --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" _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"