From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vasily Averin Subject: Re: [NETFILTER] early_drop() imrovement (v3) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:20:18 +0400 Message-ID: <46811292.1010501@sw.ru> References: <4615FE1D.80206@sw.ru> <20070406102433.d3a670a5.dada1@cosmosbay.com> <4616203A.80203@sw.ru> <4616626C.9020100@trash.net> <4617845F.7080203@sw.ru> <461789CF.8000106@cosmosbay.com> <46187770.1070106@sw.ru> <46417137.5080501@sw.ru> <467FC8D2.5070102@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Dumazet , "David S. Miller" , netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, Linux Kernel Mailing List , devel@openvz.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: In-Reply-To: <467FC8D2.5070102@trash.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Patrick McHardy wrote: Patrick, thank you for your tips, I'll remake the patch. > I don't like the NF_CT_PER_BUCKET constant. First of all, each > conntrack is hashed twice, so its really only 1/2 of the average > conntracks per bucket. Secondly, its only a default and many > people use nf_conntrack_max = nf_conntrack_htable_size / 2, so > using this constant for early_drop seems wrong. > Perhaps make it 2 * nf_conntrack_max / nf_conntrack_htable_size > or even add a nf_conntrack_eviction_range sysctl. IMHO The number of conntracks checked in early_drop() have following restrictions: - it should be not too low -- to decrease chances of transmission failures, - it should be limited by some reasonable value -- to prevent long check delays. Also I believe it makes sense to have it constant (how about NF_CT_EVICTION name?) -- to have the same behaviour on various nodes. However I doubt strongly that anybody will want to change this value. Do you think it is really required? thank you, Vasily Averin