[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1177593010.4077.18.camel@localhost>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:10:10 -0400
From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][XFRM] export SAD info
On Thu, 2007-26-04 at 00:18 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
> > Would it make sense to have those vars as u32 instead of unsigned int?
>
> I'm ambivalent, "unsigned int" happens to be 32-bit on every platform.
> So changing it would cause no harm :-)
If unsigned int is always u32 i will leave it as is.
I would have liked to just do a read_lock_bh when retrieving the table
metadata; however, the state table lock is defined as DEFINE_SPINLOCK
unlike the policy table which is defined as DEFINE_RWLOCK.
Any objection to change the state lock to be RW?
BTW, if i can get the SADinfo, then i should be able to set it from user
space too;->
So that would be my next change unless there is objection.
One other angle is start rejecting additions to the table after some
point. To test, I wrote a little DOS tool that just kept adding entries
until an OOM hit. It is a lot of fun to watch when you hit a point that
swap is guzzling 2G or more. The add latency starts going up
exponentially.
I would like to enable the admin to set the proper param settings for
upper bound. Exceeding the upper bounds of the max entries a table
should have returns ENOMEM for any new entries. By default current
behavior is maintained.
Thoughts?
cheers,
jamal
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists