| To: | Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [BUG] overflow in net/ipv4/route.c rt_check_expire() |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:28:02 -0800 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <424D5D34.4030800@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <42370997.6010302@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050315103253.590c8bfc.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42380EC6.60100@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050316140915.0f6b9528.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4239E00C.4080309@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050331221352.13695124.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <424D5D34.4030800@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 16:39:48 +0200 Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If spinlock_t is a zero sized structure on UP, how can this save memory > > on UP? :-) > > Because I deleted the __attribute__((__aligned__(8))) constraint on struct > rt_hash_bucket. Right. > > Anyways, I think perhaps you should dynamically allocate this lock table. > > Maybe I should make a static sizing, (replace the 256 constant by something > based on MAX_CPUS) ? Even for NR_CPUS, I think the table should be dynamically allocated. It is a goal to eliminate all of these huge arrays in the static kernel image, which has grown incredibly too much in recent times. I work often to eliminate such things, let's not add new ones :-) |
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] Fix SELinux for removal of i_sock, Stephen Smalley |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Fix SELinux for removal of i_sock, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [BUG] overflow in net/ipv4/route.c rt_check_expire(), Robert Olsson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [BUG] overflow in net/ipv4/route.c rt_check_expire(), Eric Dumazet |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |