| To: | davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH][IPv6] separation xfrm_lookup from ip6_dst_lookup |
| From: | YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 03 Aug 2004 02:00:15 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | kazunori@xxxxxxxxxxxx, herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, usagi-core@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040801195135.16734846.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | USAGI Project |
| References: | <20040730171205.114f22ba.kazunori@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040801195135.16734846.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
In article <20040801195135.16734846.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Sun, 1 Aug 2004
19:51:35 -0700), "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:12:05 +0900
> Kazunori Miyazawa <kazunori@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I consider copying flowi(fl_rt) uses too much stack at the moment.
> > I'll re-send the fixed patch again.
>
> I agree, and let's defer this patch until we
> resolve that.
Is the overhead for allocating memory okay?
Or, do we allcoate some per-cpu memory while ipv6.o initalization phase?
(check: lock? preemption?)
Or, will we allocate fl (and fl_rt) per sock{} (ipv6_pinfo{})?
(ditto.)
We have similar stack usage in other codes, and
I would fix them at the same time.
Another question just for future reference:
how many bytes (approx.) do we accept on stack?
Note: sizeof(struct flowi) is 72 bytes (on i386)
--yoshfuji
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH][IPv6] separation xfrm_lookup from ip6_dst_lookup, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH][IPv6] separation xfrm_lookup from ip6_dst_lookup, Kazunori Miyazawa |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH][IPv6] separation xfrm_lookup from ip6_dst_lookup, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH][IPv6] separation xfrm_lookup from ip6_dst_lookup, Kazunori Miyazawa |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |