From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] netfilter : 3 patches to boost ip_tables performance Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:50:49 +0200 Message-ID: <4332D2D9.7090802@cosmosbay.com> References: <43308324.70403@cosmosbay.com> <200509221454.22923.ak@suse.de> <20050922125849.GA27413@infradead.org> <200509221505.05395.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , Christoph Hellwig , "David S. Miller" Return-path: To: Christoph Lameter In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Christoph Lameter a =E9crit : >=20 > It should really be do_set_mempolicy instead to be cleaner. I got a pat= ch=20 > here that fixes the policy layer. >=20 > But still I agree with Christoph that a real vmalloc_node is better. Th= ere=20 > will be no fuzzing around with memory policies etc and its certainly=20 > better performance wise. vmalloc_node() should be seldom used, at driver init, or when a new ip_ta= bles=20 is loaded. If it happens to be a performance problem, then we can optimiz= e it. Why should we spend days of work for a function that is yet to be used ? Eric