From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH V2 3/9] net: frag, move LRU list maintenance
 outside of rwlock
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:31:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <20121129.133108.427624036846294750.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <1354211659.3299.15.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	<20121129.130506.329791401604974668.davem@davemloft.net>
	<1354213492.3299.22.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
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: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:34159 "EHLO
	shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754259Ab2K2SbL (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:31:11 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1354213492.3299.22.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:24:52 -0800

> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 13:05 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> 
>> Replace 1024 in your formula with X and the limit is therefore
>> controlled by X.
>> 
>> So it seems the high_thresh can be replaced with an appropriate
>> determination of X to size the hash.
>> 
>> If X is 256, that limits us to ~130MB per cpu.
>> 
> 
> per host, as the table would be shared by all cpus.

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.