[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46811292.1010501@sw.ru>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:20:18 +0400
From: Vasily Averin <vvs@...ru>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
CC: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netfilter-devel@...ts.netfilter.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [NETFILTER] early_drop() imrovement (v3)
Patrick McHardy wrote:
Patrick, thank you for your tips, I'll remake the patch.
> I don't like the NF_CT_PER_BUCKET constant. First of all, each
> conntrack is hashed twice, so its really only 1/2 of the average
> conntracks per bucket. Secondly, its only a default and many
> people use nf_conntrack_max = nf_conntrack_htable_size / 2, so
> using this constant for early_drop seems wrong.
> Perhaps make it 2 * nf_conntrack_max / nf_conntrack_htable_size
> or even add a nf_conntrack_eviction_range sysctl.
IMHO The number of conntracks checked in early_drop() have following restrictions:
- it should be not too low -- to decrease chances of transmission failures,
- it should be limited by some reasonable value -- to prevent long check delays.
Also I believe it makes sense to have it constant (how about NF_CT_EVICTION
name?) -- to have the same behaviour on various nodes. However I doubt strongly
that anybody will want to change this value. Do you think it is really required?
thank you,
Vasily Averin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists