[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150516.180843.2228294721060919804.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 18:08:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc: johannes@...solutions.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kaber@...sh.net,
tgraf@...g.ch, johannes.berg@...el.com
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] rhashtable: Add cap on number of elements in hash
table
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 11:30:47 +0800
> We currently have no limit on the number of elements in a hash table.
> This is a problem because some users (tipc) set a ceiling on the
> maximum table size and when that is reached the hash table may
> degenerate. Others may encounter OOM when growing and if we allow
> insertions when that happens the hash table perofrmance may also
> suffer.
>
> This patch adds a new paramater insecure_max_entries which becomes
> the cap on the table. If unset it defaults to max_size * 2. If
> it is also zero it means that there is no cap on the number of
> elements in the table. However, the table will grow whenever the
> utilisation hits 100% and if that growth fails, you will get ENOMEM
> on insertion.
>
> As allowing oversubscription is potentially dangerous, the name
> contains the word insecure.
>
> Note that the cap is not a hard limit. This is done for performance
> reasons as enforcing a hard limit will result in use of atomic ops
> that are heavier than the ones we currently use.
>
> The reasoning is that we're only guarding against a gross over-
> subscription of the table, rather than a small breach of the limit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Applied, thanks Herbert.
--
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