On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:51:11AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Dan Streetman wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Steffen Klassert
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> What about the patch below? With this we are independent of the number
> >> of cpus. It should cover mo
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Steffen Klassert
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:14:59PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Steffen Klassert
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Possibly the
>> >> default value of xfrm4_gc_thresh could be set proportional to
>> >> num_online_cpu
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Dan Streetman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Steffen Klassert
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:14:59PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Steffen Klassert
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Possibly the
>>> >> default value of
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Steffen Klassert
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:14:59PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Steffen Klassert
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Possibly the
>> >> default value of xfrm4_gc_thresh could be set proportional to
>> >> num_online_cpu
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 09:23:35PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Steffen Klassert
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:45:41 +0200
>
> > index 1e06c4f..3dffc73 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/xfrm4_policy.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/xfrm4_policy.c
> > @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ static struct dst_ops xfrm4_dst_ops = {
>
From: Steffen Klassert
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:45:41 +0200
> index 1e06c4f..3dffc73 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/xfrm4_policy.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/xfrm4_policy.c
> @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ static struct dst_ops xfrm4_dst_ops = {
> .destroy = xfrm4_dst_destroy,
> .ifdown =
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:14:59PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Steffen Klassert
> wrote:
> >
> >> Possibly the
> >> default value of xfrm4_gc_thresh could be set proportional to
> >> num_online_cpus(), but that doesn't help when cpus are onlined after
> >> boot.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Steffen Klassert
wrote:
> Hi Dan.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 05:01:26PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
>> Hi Steffen,
>>
>> I've been working with Jay on a ipsec issue, which I believe he
>> discussed with you.
>
> Yes, we talked about this at the LPC.
>
>> In this c
Hi Dan.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 05:01:26PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> Hi Steffen,
>
> I've been working with Jay on a ipsec issue, which I believe he
> discussed with you.
Yes, we talked about this at the LPC.
> In this case the xfrm4_garbage_collect is
> returning error because the number
Hi Steffen,
I've been working with Jay on a ipsec issue, which I believe he
discussed with you. In this case the xfrm4_garbage_collect is
returning error because the number of xfrm4 dst entries has exceeded
twice the gc_thresh, which causes new allocations of xfrm4 dst objects
to fail, thus makin
10 matches
Mail list logo