netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] flow: better memory management

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1284357111.5560.2533.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:51:51 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] flow: better memory management

Le lundi 13 septembre 2010 à 00:28 +0200, Andi Kleen a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> writes:
> 
> > Allocate hash tables for every online cpus, not every possible ones.
> 
> There are some setups that boot most of the CPUs after boot.
> On those this heuristic would be very wrong.
> 

Why ?

I dont get your argument Andi.

I coded following obvious thing :

At boot : Allocate tables for online cpus

When bringing up a cpu online : allocate table for this "new" cpu.

What could be wrong with this ?

On my machine, this works well and save 16 "tables", because I have 16
online cpus, while they are 32 possible cpus (Its a lie, since I have
two quad core cpus, and a total of 16 threads)





--
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