Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+Reduce\s+netfilter\s+memory\s+use\s+on\s+MP\s+systems\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+Reduce\s+netfilter\s+memory\s+use\s+on\s+MP\s+systems\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] Reduce netfilter memory use on MP systems (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:09:00 +0100; On kernels compiled with a big NR_CPUS netfilter rules would eat a lot of memory because all counters would be duplicated for all NR_CPUs CPUs. With NR_CPUS=256 this would add up to many MBs of memor; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00126.html (10,145 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] Reduce netfilter memory use on MP systems (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:34:42 +0100; Patrick, could you apply and submit this patch to Davem? Or if Davem applies it himself. It's pretty obvious and would help small SMP machines with distribution kernels and/or strange admins. -- /Mar; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00129.html (9,606 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] Reduce netfilter memory use on MP systems (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:51:34 +0100; The main motivation is actually not to save the memory (that's just a useful side effect), but increase the max limit on 64bit systems. Fixing it fully will require fixing vmalloc of course, but it; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00130.html (8,806 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] Reduce netfilter memory use on MP systems (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:13:34 +0100; Andi Kleen wrote: The main motivation is actually not to save the memory (that's just a useful side effect), but increase the max limit on 64bit systems. Fixing it fully will require fixing vmalloc o; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00132.html (16,237 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] Reduce netfilter memory use on MP systems (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 19:31:25 +0100; Thanks, Andi. I think the NR_CPUS is actually a remnescant of 2.3.x times when we didn't have num_possible_cpus() yet. Also wrt. your vmalloc issues, I think there are floating around some patches wh; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00245.html (9,701 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] Reduce netfilter memory use on MP systems (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 20:10:28 +0100; Don't think they're needed (unless you want it for other reasons). The vmalloc limit is clearly a bug in itself and will be surely fixed. -Andi; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00246.html (8,290 bytes)
7. [PATCH] Reduce netfilter memory use on MP systems (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:09:00 +0100; On kernels compiled with a big NR_CPUS netfilter rules would eat a lot of memory because all counters would be duplicated for all NR_CPUs CPUs. With NR_CPUS=256 this would add up to many MBs of memor; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01146.html (10,145 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] Reduce netfilter memory use on MP systems (score: 1): Author: Martin Josefsson <gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:34:42 +0100; Patrick, could you apply and submit this patch to Davem? Or if Davem applies it himself. It's pretty obvious and would help small SMP machines with distribution kernels and/or strange admins. -- /Mar; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01149.html (9,664 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] Reduce netfilter memory use on MP systems (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:51:34 +0100; The main motivation is actually not to save the memory (that's just a useful side effect), but increase the max limit on 64bit systems. Fixing it fully will require fixing vmalloc of course, but it; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01150.html (8,897 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] Reduce netfilter memory use on MP systems (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:13:34 +0100; The main motivation is actually not to save the memory (that's just a useful side effect), but increase the max limit on 64bit systems. Fixing it fully will require fixing vmalloc of course, but it; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01152.html (16,314 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH] Reduce netfilter memory use on MP systems (score: 1): Author: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 19:31:25 +0100; Thanks, Andi. I think the NR_CPUS is actually a remnescant of 2.3.x times when we didn't have num_possible_cpus() yet. Also wrt. your vmalloc issues, I think there are floating around some patches wh; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01265.html (9,774 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] Reduce netfilter memory use on MP systems (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 20:10:28 +0100; Don't think they're needed (unless you want it for other reasons). The vmalloc limit is clearly a bug in itself and will be surely fixed. -Andi; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01266.html (8,379 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]