From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH V2 3/9] net: frag, move LRU list maintenance outside of rwlock Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:33:13 -0800 Message-ID: <1354213993.3299.23.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <1354211659.3299.15.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20121129.130506.329791401604974668.davem@davemloft.net> <1354213492.3299.22.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20121129.133108.427624036846294750.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: brouer@redhat.com, fw@strlen.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pablo@netfilter.org, tgraf@suug.ch, amwang@redhat.com, kaber@trash.net, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:57706 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754497Ab2K2SdP (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:33:15 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id wy7so10746184pbc.19 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:33:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20121129.133108.427624036846294750.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 13:31 -0500, David Miller wrote: > I think a per-cpu hash might make more sense. > > This would scale our limits to the size of the system. > > I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but it seems the most > sensible thing to do. It would break in many cases, when frags are spreaded on different cpus.