From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: 100 network limit Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:46:39 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <3F4E783F.6080707@candelatech.com> References: <20030828180019.GH12541@krispykreme> <20030828210855.58759b69.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Anton Blanchard , netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Andi Kleen In-Reply-To: <20030828210855.58759b69.ak@suse.de> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Andi Kleen wrote: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 04:00:19 +1000 > Anton Blanchard wrote: > > > >>Anyway as a short term fix Jamal suggested making a sysctl for this >>maximum. If fixing this all properly is out of the question for 2.6, >>would the sysctl approach be satisfactory? The other option is to just >>bump the limit and recognise that the user is on his own if performance >>sucks. > > > You could just add a bitmap with a reasonable upper limit (1024?) and use > find_first_zero_bit() I doubt doing that would be very intrusive. > > -Andi 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.) Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com