On 27.11.2012 09:54, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 02:30:51AM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
A> On 14.11.2012 19:47, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
A> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:28:23PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
A> > A>  So, we can do the following:
A> > A>  1) lock increments/decrements via some separate mutex
A> > A>  2) do nothing
A> > A>  3) take some combined approach:
A> >
A> > 4) Take it via uma_zone_getcur(ipfw_dyn_rule_zone);
A> It acquired zone lock to collect per-cpu item data, but
A> uma_zone_set_max() did the trick.
A> >
A>
A> Patch updated:
A> * UMA zone is now allocated per-VNET instance

Why? This only leads to more waste in allocator.
To be able to enforce state limit per-instance as it currently works.



--
WBR, Alexander


_______________________________________________
freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to