[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B184F4C.3060407@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:52:44 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] llc: use a device based hash table to speed up multicast
delivery
Octavian Purdila a écrit :
>
> Yes, that is probably not appropriate for upstream. What would be a good
> value?
>
A small one to begin (say 64).
> Since at this point we are using UP ports contention is not really an issue
> for us. I've extrapolated this (lock per hash bucket) based on how locking is
> done in other places, like UDP.
Yes but you know we want to remove those locks per UDP hash bucket, since we dont
really need them anymore. ;)
If you remember, we had in the past one rwlock for the whole UDP table.
Then this was converted to one spinlock per hash slot (128 slots) + RCU lookups for unicast RX
Then we dynamically sized udp table at boot (up to 65536 slots)
multicast optimization (holding lock for small duration + double hashing)
bind optimization (thanks to double hashing)
To be done :
1) multicast RX can be done without taking any lock, and RCU lookups
2) zap all locks and use one lock, or a small array of hashed spinlocks
--
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