On 1/8/15 8:31 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 12:21:57AM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
B>
B> > On 07 Jan 2015, at 20:46 , Gleb Smirnoff <gleb...@freebsd.org> wrote:
B> >
B> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 09:03:04AM +0000, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
B> > C> Author: rodrigc
B> > C> Date: Tue Jan  6 09:03:03 2015
B> > C> New Revision: 276747
B> > C> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/276747
B> > C>
B> > C> Log:
B> > C>   Instead of creating a purge thread for every vnet, create
B> > C>   a single purge thread and clean up all vnets from this thread.
B> > C>
B> > C>   PR:                     194515
B> > C>   Differential Revision:  D1315
B> > C>   Submitted by:           Nikos Vassiliadis <nv...@gmx.com>
B> >
B> > I am not sure that this is a good idea. The core idea of VNETs
B> > is that they are isolated from each other. If we serialize purging,
B> > then vnets are strongly affecting each other.
B> >
B> > AFAIU, from the PR there is some panic fixed. What is the actual bug
B> > and why couldn't it be fixed with having per-vnet thread?
B>
B> You don’t 30000 whatever pf purging threads on a system all running, 
possibly competing for some resources, e.g., locks?

Isn't a vnet, which is a jail, already a set of a dozen of processes? So,
if you are speaking of "30000 whatever pf purging threads", then you
already mean "1 mln whatever processes".
Actually, no.
as we have presetned it, a vnet is part of a jail.
But, it was originally an independnent
thing, like FIBS,  and a jail may exist with a single process.
I think one should be enough.. or if that it is not sufficient, then at maximum, one per cpu

Speaking of pf purging threads competing for resources. If someone wants
really independent pfs in vnets, then locks should be virtualized as well.


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

Reply via email to