On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 12:56:23AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > I'll inclue it in my next round of kernel builds and give it
> > some testing.
>
> Thanks.
Please note that I guess I won't have any results until late Sunday/Monday.
> 4) The controversial/RFC patch, dorking with neigh_forced_gc()
>
> So let's discuss #4. It is the first idea I had to combat the
> "problem", but honestly right now I am beginning to think that
> the real solution is to simply remove the INCOMPLETE checks
> altogether.
>
> Neighbours are a sub-cache of the routing cache. Therefore when
> a neigh entry has a singular refcount, no routing cache entry
> points to it. No routing cache entry, we're not sending packets
> to that neighbour any time soon, so there is no reason (especially
> during strong pressure) to hold onto such entries.
I am sure this is valid for IPv4 and IPv6. How about other users of the
neighbour cache, do they share this assumption? I have to admit that I
never looked throgh the ATM or
> Agree or disagree? Regardless, I'd be interested how effective
> your stress case is with patch #4 and my new suggestion which
> is just to remove the:
I'll do tests with and without INCOMPLETE check. No results until late
Sunday/Monday, as indicated above.
[yes, I noticed your corrected version of diff4]
--
- Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx> http://www.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
Programming is like sex: One mistake and you have to support it your lifetime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
|