[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A30EFBE.6080106@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:51:26 +0300
From: Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kuznet@....inr.ac.ru
Subject: Re: ip_gre headroom allocation
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 02:29:46PM +0300, Timo Teräs wrote:
>> I guess this is easy for point-to-point tunnels. But how about the
>> multipoint gre tunnels? The needed_headroom can vary on destination
>> basis depending on if they are NATted or not, and on the cipher/hash
>> used.
>
> I don't think we need to worry about NAT, well at least we don't
> worry about it on the normal path :)
It affects if ESP or UDP-over-ESP encapsulation is used. This can
vary on destination IP basis. This different needed_headroom size.
This the case only for multi-point tunnels. But yes, we don't need
to worry about it, it just one factor that can affect what the
actual needed_headroom can end up being.
>> Can we change the needed_headroom on-the-fly? Increase it when ever
>> we encounter a larger path? But this also means some packages would
>> get extra headroom allocated.
>
> Just make it the maximum. It's OK to have extra head space.
> If the head space is huge then you've got bigger problems than
> wasted memory :)
I guess so. The difference is not too many bytes. Is it ok to just
change the dev->needed_headroom from xmit routine?
- Timo
--
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