On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, David Miller wrote:
From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 01:23:01 +0200
The problem is to find out what a good boundary is.
The more I think about this the more I lean towards
two conclusions:
1) dynamic table growth is the only reasonable way to
handle this and not waste memory in all cases
....
Definitely that's the ideal way to go.
But there's alot of state to update (more or less
atomically, too) in the TCP hashes. Looks tricky to
do that without hurting performance, especially since
you'll probably want to resize the tables when you've
discovered they're full and busy....
--
Arthur
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
