netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/16] Remove the ipv4 routing cache

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 22 Jul 2012 12:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	subramanian.vijay@...il.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] Remove the ipv4 routing cache

From: Vijay Subramanian <subramanian.vijay@...il.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:47:27 -0700

> I have been running your routing removal patches for the past 3 days
> (upgraded yesterday to latest set including the 17th patch you sent in
> response to Eric's comment) and have not seen any issues (crashes
> etc).

Thanks for testing.

> Apart from time spent in fib_table_lookup(), it seems time is also
> spent in check_leaf(). I assume this is expected behavior.
> Here are 2 sample perf outputs (I have appended the kbench outputs to
> each file)

Yes, the two biggest hogs will be fib_table_lookup() and check_leaf().

check_leaf() is expensive largely because that's where we write the
fib_result block, which is a structure on the fib_lookup() caller's
stack.

Your perf traces roughly approximate mine.

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html