| To: | Tomasz Paszkowski <tomasz.paszkowski@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: hfsc and huge set of rules |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 30 Jul 2004 16:38:37 -0400 |
| Cc: | Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, devik@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040730110815.GA7812@krezus.e-wro.net> |
| Organization: | jamalopolous |
| References: | <20040729211844.61e8d328.davem@redhat.com> <410A2449.3020701@trash.net> <20040730110815.GA7812@krezus.e-wro.net> |
| Reply-to: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Tomasz, Have you verified that this happens on other Linux versions like earlier 2.4.x (2.4.21 for example)? Also can you try just deleting the filters first and see what happens? i.e something like: filter add dev e0.931 protocol ip parent 1:101 pref 5 filter del dev e0.932 protocol ip parent 1:101 pref 5 .. delete them as specified above because that nips them at the prio level. BTW, since you are one of the few people i have seen use clever hashing tricks with u32, could you test out u32 in 2.6.8-rc2 and make sure it doesnt break anything? There is a bug fix that deals with selecting hash buckets. cheers, jamal |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC,PATCH] fastroute dead code..., jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [RFC,PATCH] fastroute dead code..., Manish Lachwani |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Fw: hfsc and huge set of rules, Tomasz Paszkowski |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Fw: hfsc and huge set of rules, devik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |