netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH V2 3/9] net: frag, move LRU list maintenance outside of rwlock

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: <20121129.133108.427624036846294750.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:31:08 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
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

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:24:52 -0800

> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 13:05 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> 
>> Replace 1024 in your formula with X and the limit is therefore
>> controlled by X.
>> 
>> So it seems the high_thresh can be replaced with an appropriate
>> determination of X to size the hash.
>> 
>> If X is 256, that limits us to ~130MB per cpu.
>> 
> 
> per host, as the table would be shared by all cpus.

I think a per-cpu hash might make more sense.

This would scale our limits to the size of the system.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but it seems the most
sensible thing to do.
--
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