From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kazunori Miyazawa Subject: Re: [PATCH][IPv6] separation xfrm_lookup from ip6_dst_lookup Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 18:21:10 +0900 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <410F5906.30402@miyazawa.org> References: <20040730171205.114f22ba.kazunori@miyazawa.org> <20040801195135.16734846.davem@redhat.com> <20040803.020015.44364045.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: davem@redhat.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@oss.sgi.com, usagi-core@linux-ipv6.org Return-path: To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki In-Reply-To: <20040803.020015.44364045.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote: > In article <20040801195135.16734846.davem@redhat.com> (at Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:51:35 -0700), "David S. Miller" says: > > >>On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:12:05 +0900 >>Kazunori Miyazawa wrote: >> >> >>>I consider copying flowi(fl_rt) uses too much stack at the moment. >>>I'll re-send the fixed patch again. >> >>I agree, and let's defer this patch until we >>resolve that. > > > Is the overhead for allocating memory okay? > Or, do we allcoate some per-cpu memory while ipv6.o initalization phase? > (check: lock? preemption?) > Or, will we allocate fl (and fl_rt) per sock{} (ipv6_pinfo{})? > (ditto.) > My intention is not high art, just using struct in6_addr instead of struct flowi to store final destination. > We have similar stack usage in other codes, and > I would fix them at the same time. > These might be my changes. I will fix them. > > Another question just for future reference: > how many bytes (approx.) do we accept on stack? > > Note: sizeof(struct flowi) is 72 bytes (on i386) > > --yoshfuji --Kazunori Miyazawa