| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4B0A8D41.6010608@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:25:21 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jdb@...x.dk> CC: Linux Kernel Network Hackers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Robert Olsson <robert@...julf.net> Subject: Re: Strange CPU load when flushing route cache (kernel 2.6.31.6) Jesper Dangaard Brouer a écrit : > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 11:29 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> Sure, after a flush, we have to rebuild the cache, so extra work is expected. > > But the old 2.6.25.7 do NOT show this behavior... That is the real > issue... Previous kernels were crashing, because flush was immediate and not deferred as today. During flush, we were dropping enormous amounts of packets. Now, its possible to have setups with equilibrium and no packet loss, because we smoothtly invalidate cache entries. > I did the cache flushing due to some historical issues, that I think you > did a fix for... Guess I can drop the flushing and see if the garbage > collection can keep up... Yes it can. Unless your route cache settings are not optimal. > >> Do you run a 2G/2G User/Kernel split kernel ? > > Not sure, how do I check? grep LowTotal /proc/meminfo or dmesg | grep LOWMEM 913MB LOWMEM available. (standard 3G/1G User/Kernel split) -- 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