netdev - Re: Scaling 'ip addr add' (was Re: What's the right way to use a *large* number of source addresses?)

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: <CACP96tRBiANHxXSFZ_w7eKwO_zWk_AZv-7CDJFLSP6+bZJLZ5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 May 2014 08:18:16 -0400
From:	sowmini varadhan <sowmini05@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	Niels Möller <nisse@...thpole.se>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>
Subject: Re: Scaling 'ip addr add' (was Re: What's the right way to use a
 *large* number of source addresses?)

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:

> Last time I checked, we were spending _lot_ of time in check_lifetime()

Although check_lifetime() itself did not light up in my
perf output, i see your point- it has a few ifa_list walks
that might end up being expensive - but these are static
IPv4 addresses- they should be marked IFA_F_PERMANENT,
right? That's probably why they did not show up in my perf output?

--Sowmini
--
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