[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 100 network limit

To: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 100 network limit
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:41:43 -0700
Cc: ak@xxxxxxx, anton@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3F4E783F.6080707@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20030828180019.GH12541@krispykreme> <20030828210855.58759b69.ak@xxxxxxx> <3F4E783F.6080707@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:46:39 -0700
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 hard-coded 100
> limit be more like 8196 or something really large?  (It could still
> be adjustable if needed.)

Right, it's also not going to fix the locking problems.

I would suggest two things:

1) Ben's hashing patch for lookups.

2) RCU'ing read access to the device list.

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