[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C5551D9AAB213A418B7FD5E4A6F30A0702F8C83B@ORSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:51:29 +0000
From: "Rose, Gregory V" <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "bhutchings@...arflare.com" <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC V2 PATCH] rtnetlink: Fix problem with buffer allocation
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 1:48 PM
> To: Rose, Gregory V
> Cc: bhutchings@...arflare.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC V2 PATCH] rtnetlink: Fix problem with buffer allocation
>
> From: "Rose, Gregory V" <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:41:57 +0000
>
> > The second item sort of matches what I said in the last reply. Base
> > the buffer allocation size on the maximum possible for the given
> > extension which as I said, is up to 255 VFs for the case under
> > immediate consideration.
>
> That's what we're trying to avoid, because that will result in multi-order
> allocations (which are failure prone) when most of the time such a large
> buffer is entirely unnecessary.
>
> > The first one seems like a good idea but I wonder what the effect
> > would be on a system with a large number of interfaces.
>
> It's already expensive to dump a large number of devices, and in
> effect you'll be optimizing the buffer allocation which could in fact
> end up helping performance.
OK, I'll see what I can do.
- Greg
--
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