[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 100 network limit

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 100 network limit
From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:46:39 -0700
Cc: Anton Blanchard <anton@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20030828210855.58759b69.ak@xxxxxxx>
Organization: Candela Technologies
References: <20030828180019.GH12541@krispykreme> <20030828210855.58759b69.ak@xxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030529
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 04:00:19 +1000
Anton Blanchard <anton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Anyway as a short term fix Jamal suggested making a sysctl for this
maximum. If fixing this all properly is out of the question for 2.6,
would the sysctl approach be satisfactory? The other option is to just
bump the limit and recognise that the user is on his own if performance

You could just add a bitmap with a reasonable upper limit (1024?) and use find_first_zero_bit() I doubt doing that would be very intrusive.


Since you can rename devices, that might not work.  A long time ago I
hashed the devices, both by name and by index...that gives good lookup 
performance, at least.  As for
create-time issues, that is definately slow path, and even searching linearly
4 or 8k devices is not a big deal (in my opinion).  So, why not make the 
100 limit be more like 8196 or something really large?  (It could still be 
if needed.)


Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc

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