On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:05:26AM +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 11:15 +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 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...
Ok, leaving it seems reasonable.
Pablo, do you have any objections?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html