[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1354211659.3299.15.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:54:19 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: brouer@...hat.com, 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 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
So lets call the threshold a limit ;)
I agree the ipfrag_low_thresh should disappear :
One we hit the ipfrag_high_thresh (under softirq), we really dont want
to scan table to perform gc, as it might take more than 10 ms
--
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