From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: 100 network limit
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:41:43 -0700
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Message-ID: <20030828164143.536d8d8a.davem@redhat.com>
References: <20030828180019.GH12541@krispykreme>
	<20030828210855.58759b69.ak@suse.de>
	<3F4E783F.6080707@candelatech.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ak@suse.de, anton@samba.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com
Return-path: <netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
To: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
In-Reply-To: <3F4E783F.6080707@candelatech.com>
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:46:39 -0700
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:

> Since you can rename devices, that might not work.  A long time ago
> I hashed the devices, both by name and by index...that gives good
> lookup performance, at least.  As for create-time issues, that is
> definately slow path, and even searching linearly 4 or 8k devices is
> not a big deal (in my opinion).  So, why not make the hard-coded 100
> limit be more like 8196 or something really large?  (It could still
> be adjustable if needed.)

Right, it's also not going to fix the locking problems.

I would suggest two things:

1) Ben's hashing patch for lookups.

2) RCU'ing read access to the device list.