|To:||"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: [BUG] overflow in net/ipv4/route.c rt_check_expire()|
|From:||Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 01 Apr 2005 16:39:48 +0200|
|References:||<42370997.6010302@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050315103253.590c8bfc.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42380EC6.60100@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050316140915.0f6b9528.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4239E00C.4080309@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050331221352.13695124.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)|
David S. Miller a écrit :
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:52:44 +0100 Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:- Move the spinlocks out of tr_hash_table to a fixed size table : Saves a lot of memory (particulary on UP)If spinlock_t is a zero sized structure on UP, how can this save memory on UP? :-)
Because I deleted the __attribute__((__aligned__(8))) constraint on struct rt_hash_bucket. So sizeof(struct rt_hash_bucket) is now 4 instead of 8 on 32 bits architectures. May I remind you some people still use 32 bits CPU ? :-) By the way I have an updated patch... surviving very serious loads.
Anyways, I think perhaps you should dynamically allocate this lock table.
Maybe I should make a static sizing, (replace the 256 constant by something based on MAX_CPUS) ?
Otherwise it looks fine.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: PATCH: IPSEC xfrm events, Masahide NAKAMURA|
|Next by Date:||Re: [BUG] overflow in net/ipv4/route.c rt_check_expire(), Robert Olsson|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: Resend: Re: PATCH: IPSEC acquire in presence of multiple managers, jamal|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [BUG] overflow in net/ipv4/route.c rt_check_expire(), Robert Olsson|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|