| To: | Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] option for large routing hash |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:15:56 -0800 |
| Cc: | Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <16342.19599.686693.823755@robur.slu.se> |
| References: | <16341.58771.558850.163216@robur.slu.se> <20031209122031.048b406f.davem@redhat.com> <16342.19599.686693.823755@robur.slu.se> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:28:31 +0100
Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> IP: routing cache hash table of 4096 buckets, 32Kbytes
...
> And tot+hit gives the pps throughput 152 kpps.
...
> IP: routing cache hash table of 32768 buckets, 256Kbytes
...
> We see cache is now used as hit > tot and we get a performance jump from
> 152 to 265 kpps.
>
> Just as you said this was the experiment. I'll stop here for now.
Thanks for the data.
I would eventually like an algorithm that uses a min/max range.
Perhaps something like:
const unsigned long rthash_min = PAGE_SIZE:
const unsigned long rthash_max = PAGE_ALIGN(512 * 1024 *
sizeof(struct rt_hash_bucket));
unsigned long rthash_choose_size(unsigned long num_physpages)
{
unsigned long goal;
goal = num_physpages >> (23 - PAGE_SHIFT);
if (goal < rthash_min)
goal = rthash_min;
if (goal > rthash_max)
goal = rthash_max;
return goal;
}
It's a combination of your goal computation adjustment along with
sanity limits, that's all.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: GRE tunnel keepalive support?, Daniel Roesen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Kernel 2.4.22 MLD problems, David Stevens |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] option for large routing hash, Robert Olsson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] option for large routing hash, Robert Olsson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |