From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH V2 3/9] net: frag, move LRU list maintenance outside of rwlock Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:36:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20121129.133644.1495776898566315155.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1354213492.3299.22.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20121129.133108.427624036846294750.davem@davemloft.net> <1354213993.3299.23.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: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:34269 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753902Ab2K2Sgq (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:36:46 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1354213993.3299.23.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Eric Dumazet Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:33:13 -0800 > 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. Indeed, ignore my stupid idea.