[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090628120328.GA2739@ami.dom.local>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:03:28 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Robert Olsson <robert@...ur.slu.se>
Cc: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se>,
=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3_Staszewski?=
<pstaszewski@...are.pl>, "Jorge Boncompte [DTI2]" <jorge@...2.net>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Robert Olsson <robert.olsson@....uu.se>,
Linux Network Development list <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: rib_trie / Fix inflate_threshold_root. Now=15 size=11 bits
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 01:04:51PM +0200, Robert Olsson wrote:
...
> Yes we keep the old tnode size and the convergence interval was some
> of the concerns. That why this checks was added. Still we want to
> inflate the root node to a very max.
>
> So this approach with halving or doubling tnodes towards the root
> node was the suggest by Dyntree paper. I asked Stefan (one of the
> authors) if we could get safe and very offensive settings. But
> from what I understood there was no easy way to calculate this.
> So any bright ideas in this area are very welcome. But we should
> also monitor size of root and average tree depth so we don't
> take an to defensive approach just to solve this case.
Yes, but with this offensive approach it seems the current level of
warnings could be too alarming. Btw., because of a design flaw in my
current patch this _fix variable, which should be logically per trie/
table, can be reset by changes of other tables now, but I think it
all could be fine tuned more in the future. Of course if there are
people interested in testing/reporting this more.
Thanks,
Jarek P.
--
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