Re: [RFC nf-next-2.6] conntrack: per cpu nf_conntrack_untracked

Eric Dumazet
2010-06-04T12:36:04Z

Le vendredi 04 juin 2010 à 14:29 +0200, Patrick McHardy a écrit :
> Changli Gao wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> wrote:
> >> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>> Obviously, an IPS_UNTRACKED bit would be much easier to implement.
> >>> Would it be acceptable ?
> >> That also would be fine. However the main idea behind using a nfctinfo
> >> bit was that we wouldn't need the untracked conntrack anymore at all.
> >> But I guess a per-cpu untrack conntrack would already be an improvement
> >> over the current situation.
> >
> > I think Eric didn't mean ip_conntrack_info but ip_conntrack_status
> > bit. Since we have had a IPS_TEMPLATE bit, I think another
> > IPS_UNTRACKED bit is also acceptable.
>
> Yes, of course. But using one of these bits implies that we'd still
> have the untracked conntrack.

Yes, it was my idea, with a per_cpu untracked conntrack.

I'll submit a patch, thanks.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html