On 1. August 2014 11:39:01 GMT+01:00, Thomas Graf <tg...@suug.ch> wrote: >On 08/01/14 at 11:17am, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> On 1. August 2014 09:52:00 GMT+01:00, Thomas Graf <tg...@suug.ch> >wrote: >> >If the set size is known in advance, the table is sized accordingly, >> >otherwise the table size will default to 64. This is a slight change >> >in behaviour as previously the default was 4 which eventually >required >> >many expansion iterations. >> >> That's assuming a sufficient number of entries will be added. I think >there >> will be many cases in nftables where the number will be lower. Since >> expansion is not very expansive this number was chosen very >deliberately >> and I'd prefer to keep it. >> >> Other than that: >> >> Acked-by: Patrick McHardy <ka...@trash.net> > >OK, I will change the nft_hash default size back to 4.
Thanks. >I think the expansion is more expensive than it looks though as we >are potentially calling synchronize_rcu() multiple times while >holding a mutex to protect from concurrent mutations. True. On average it should only be a single grace period though IIRC. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
