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: <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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists