On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 11:15 +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Simon Horman wrote:
> > It is unclear to me that there is any utility in the following:
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > rcu_read_lock();
> I thought it is a good idea for fixed hash table
> of IP_VS_TAB_BITS=20. May be if guarded by
> if (!((++idx) & 4095))
> to reduce its rate to 256 (with idx++ removed from the for loop) ?
> Netfilter has no such logic for nf_conntrack because
> it has limit of 16384 rows. Not sure how fatal is to try 1048576
> empty rows under RCU lock for such rare operations as
> connection listing. OTOH, ip_vs_conn_array() needs to
> seek at some initial position, so it can skip many
> entries if reading table with many conns, for example,
> 1048576 rows * 16 conns per row, we will need to
> touch 16777216 conns under lock. Not sure what is the
> best practice for such cases.
My opinion is to keep it, people tends to do such "rare" things.
It's not unusual with 256k - 1M rows...
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature