netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH][IPv6] separation xfrm_lookup from ip6_dst_lookup

To: davem@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH][IPv6] separation xfrm_lookup from ip6_dst_lookup
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 02:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: kazunori@xxxxxxxxxxxx, herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, usagi-core@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040801195135.16734846.davem@redhat.com>
Organization: USAGI Project
References: <20040730171205.114f22ba.kazunori@miyazawa.org> <20040801195135.16734846.davem@redhat.com>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
In article <20040801195135.16734846.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Sun, 1 Aug 2004 
19:51:35 -0700), "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> says:

> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:12:05 +0900
> Kazunori Miyazawa <kazunori@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I consider copying flowi(fl_rt) uses too much stack at the moment.
> > I'll re-send the fixed patch again.
> 
> I agree, and let's defer this patch until we
> resolve that.

Is the overhead for allocating memory okay?
Or, do we allcoate some per-cpu memory while ipv6.o initalization phase?
(check: lock? preemption?)
Or, will we allocate fl (and fl_rt) per sock{} (ipv6_pinfo{})?
(ditto.)

We have similar stack usage in other codes, and 
I would fix them at the same time.


Another question just for future reference: 
how many bytes (approx.) do we accept on stack?

Note: sizeof(struct flowi) is 72 bytes (on i386)

--yoshfuji

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>