[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1354228431.11754.355.camel@localhost>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:33:51 +0100
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, fw@...len.de,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, pablo@...filter.org, tgraf@...g.ch,
amwang@...hat.com, kaber@...sh.net, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH V2 3/9] net: frag, move LRU list maintenance
outside of rwlock
On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 09:54 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 12:48 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> > Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:43:24 -0800
> >
> > > Use a schem with a hash table of 256 (or 1024) slots.
> > >
> > > Each slot/bucket has :
> > > - Its own spinlock.
> > > - List of items
> > > - A limit of 5 (or so) elems in the list.
> > >
> > > No more LRU, no more rehash (thanks to jhash and the random seed at boot
> > > or first frag created), no more reader-writer lock.
> > >
> > > Use a percpu_counter to implement ipfrag_low_thresh/ipfrag_high_thresh
> >
> > If we limit the chain sizes to 5 elements, there is no need for
> > any thresholds at all.
>
> One element can hold about 100KB.
>
> I guess some systems could have some worries if we consume 1024 * 5 *
> 100 KB
1024 * 5 * 100k = 512 MB -- That's just crasy!
I guess the embedded guys is going to choke reading this!
Look at what I have achieved with 256KBytes per CPU...
--Jesper
--
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