| To: | Anton Blanchard <anton@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 100 network limit |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:08:55 +0200 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030828180019.GH12541@krispykreme> |
| References: | <20030828180019.GH12541@krispykreme> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 04:00:19 +1000 Anton Blanchard <anton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Anyway as a short term fix Jamal suggested making a sysctl for this > maximum. If fixing this all properly is out of the question for 2.6, > would the sysctl approach be satisfactory? The other option is to just > bump the limit and recognise that the user is on his own if performance > sucks. You could just add a bitmap with a reasonable upper limit (1024?) and use find_first_zero_bit() I doubt doing that would be very intrusive. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | 100 network limit, Anton Blanchard |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: NAPI on 8139too, Jeff Garzik |
| Previous by Thread: | 100 network limit, Anton Blanchard |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 100 network limit, Ben Greear |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |