| To: | timg@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH} ARP auto-sizing for 2.4.24 - 2.4.26-pre3 |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:44:12 -0800 |
| Cc: | anton@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200403141210.57266.timg@tpi.com> |
| References: | <200403141210.57266.timg@tpi.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Two problems: 1) Don't do the config option thing if we're going to auto-size. 2) Your ram_mb calcs use PAGE_SIZE as a term, and therefore assume it has a value of 4096 or somesuch. Please remove this assumption. To be honest, while I'm not against making the tables a little bigger, for ARP "WHO THE FUCK CARES" if another 100 cycles or so are burnt on a lookup. What setup do you have where ARP performance is a real issue? Your original email was nice in describing the fact that ARP does not scale, but you've made no foundation on which to erect a claim that scalability for ARP (and thus the added complexity/changes) is even necessary. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] make netdevice.h more non-kernel friendly, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] IPv4 ARP hash algorithm has poor distribution, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH} ARP auto-sizing for 2.4.24 - 2.4.26-pre3, Tim Gardner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH} ARP auto-sizing for 2.4.24 - 2.4.26-pre3, Pekka Savola |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |