| To: | Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Limit the size of the IPV4 route hash. |
| From: | Robin Holt <holt@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:37:00 -0600 |
| Cc: | Robin Holt <holt@xxxxxxx>, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxx, dipankar@xxxxxxx, laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx, bunk@xxxxxxxxx, herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxx, paulmck@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, gnb@xxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20041210153848.5acacd0a.akpm@xxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20041210190025.GA21116@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041210114829.034e02eb.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041210210006.GB23222@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041210130947.1d945422.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <20041210232722.GC24468@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041210153848.5acacd0a.akpm@xxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 03:38:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Robin Holt <holt@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > The big risk is that someone has a too-small table for some specific > > > application and their machine runs more slowly than it should, but they > > > never notice. I wonder if it would be possible to put a little once-only > > > printk into the routing code: "warning route-cache chain exceeded 100 > > > entries: consider using the rhash_entries boot option". > > > > Since the hash gets flushed every 10 seconds, what if we kept track of > > the maximum depth reached and when we reach a certain threshold, just > > allocate a larger hash and replace the old with the new. I do like the > > printk idea so the admin can prevent inconsistent performance early in > > the run cycle for the system. We could even scale the hash size up based > > upon demand. > > Once the system has been running for a while, the possibility of allocating > a decent number of physically-contiguous pages is basically zero. > > If we were to dynamically size it we'd need to either use new data > structure (slower) or use vmalloc() (slower and can fragment vmalloc > space). Why do they need to be physically contiguous? It is a hash correct? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC] Limit the size of the IPV4 route hash., Andrew Morton |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC] Limit the size of the IPV4 route hash., Robin Holt |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC] Limit the size of the IPV4 route hash., Andrew Morton |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC] Limit the size of the IPV4 route hash., Robin Holt |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |