| To: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 100 network limit |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:41:43 -0700 |
| Cc: | ak@xxxxxxx, anton@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3F4E783F.6080707@candelatech.com> |
| References: | <20030828180019.GH12541@krispykreme> <20030828210855.58759b69.ak@suse.de> <3F4E783F.6080707@candelatech.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:46:39 -0700 Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Since you can rename devices, that might not work. A long time ago > I hashed the devices, both by name and by index...that gives good > lookup performance, at least. As for create-time issues, that is > definately slow path, and even searching linearly 4 or 8k devices is > not a big deal (in my opinion). So, why not make the hard-coded 100 > limit be more like 8196 or something really large? (It could still > be adjustable if needed.) Right, it's also not going to fix the locking problems. I would suggest two things: 1) Ben's hashing patch for lookups. 2) RCU'ing read access to the device list. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [ANNOUNCE] netplug, a daemon that handles network cables getting plugged in and out, Jeff Garzik |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 100 network limit, Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 100 network limit, Ben Greear |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 100 network limit, Ben Greear |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |