From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: only run neigh_forced_gc() from one cpu Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:51:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20120919.235102.1659819445753338481.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1348046827.26523.571.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20120919.134503.2070066674881117065.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, maze@google.com, therbert@google.com To: lorenzo@google.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:60619 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752484Ab2ITDvF (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:51:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Lorenzo Colitti Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:48:09 +0900 > Sorry to butt in, but just to clarify - are you just saying that the > description should mention IPv6 explicitly, or is there something else > wrong with the patch? > > If this patch makes IPv6 performance better without affecting IPv4, it's a > good idea to apply it anyway, right? IPv6 dst entry garbage collection can > potentially cause serious performance issues on any server with a public > IPv6 address, and this patch substantially improves the situation. He's targetting net-next, and I've told him both in previous public discussions and in recent private communication that the correct fix is to make ipv6 routes use ref-count-less neighbour handling schemes like ipv4. This patch will not be applied as-is, it's not the correct way to fix this problem.