From: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@ixiacom.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] llc: use a device based hash table to speed up multicast delivery
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 01:53:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200912040153.11395.opurdila@ixiacom.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091203152513.643c471a@nehalam>
On Friday 04 December 2009 01:25:13 you wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 00:31:37 +0200
>
> Octavian Purdila <opurdila@ixiacom.com> wrote:
> > This patch adds a per SAP device based hash table to solve the
> > multicast delivery scalability issues for the case where the are a
> > large number of interfaces and a large number of sockets (bound to the
> > same SAP) are used.
>
> Rather than adding hash table and rwlock, why not hash list RCU
> and a single spin lock
>
I have a partial version with RCU and single spinlock, but then I ran into a
(Eric's I think) patch which moved the UDP lock per bucket. And since RCU
can't help on the write side (in this instance each time we bound or delete
the socket) it was not clear to me what is the best approach.
Should I go ahead with the RCU and single lock?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-03 23:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-03 22:31 [PATCH 0/4] llc enhancements Octavian Purdila
2009-12-03 22:31 ` [PATCH 1/4] llc: use dev_hard_header Octavian Purdila
2009-12-03 22:31 ` [PATCH 2/4] llc: add support for LLC_OPT_PKTINFO Octavian Purdila
2009-12-03 22:31 ` [PATCH 3/4] llc: use a device based hash table to speed up multicast delivery Octavian Purdila
2009-12-03 22:59 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-12-03 23:30 ` Octavian Purdila
2009-12-03 23:52 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-12-04 0:15 ` Octavian Purdila
2009-12-04 0:28 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-12-08 21:10 ` [RFC PATCH] llc: convert the socket list to RCU locking (was Re: [PATCH 3/4] llc: use a device based hash table to speed up multicast delivery) Octavian Purdila
2009-12-08 21:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-12-09 20:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-12-09 20:36 ` Octavian Purdila
2009-12-09 21:49 ` Octavian Purdila
2009-12-09 22:34 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-12-09 20:52 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-12-03 23:25 ` [PATCH 3/4] llc: use a device based hash table to speed up multicast delivery Stephen Hemminger
2009-12-03 23:53 ` Octavian Purdila [this message]
2009-12-04 0:37 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-12-03 22:31 ` [PATCH 4/4] llc: replace the socket list with a local address based hash Octavian Purdila
2009-12-03 23:55 ` [PATCH 0/4] llc enhancements David Miller
2009-12-04 0:20 ` Octavian Purdila
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200912040153.11395.opurdila@ixiacom.com \
--to=opurdila@ixiacom.com \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shemminger@vyatta.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).