From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kirill Korotaev Subject: Re: [PATCH] limit rt cache size Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:09:49 +0400 Message-ID: <44D9984D.9040304@sw.ru> References: <200608080711.06788.ak@suse.de> <200608090123.01123.ak@suse.de> <20060808.171152.58440635.davem@davemloft.net> <200608090224.04158.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , akepner@sgi.com, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.233.200]:6503 "EHLO relay.sw.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965095AbWHIIJK (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Aug 2006 04:09:10 -0400 To: Andi Kleen In-Reply-To: <200608090224.04158.ak@suse.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org >>2) for cases where we haven't implemented dynamic >> table growth, specifying a proper limit argument >> to the hash table allocation is a sufficient >> solution for the time being > > > Agreed, just we don't know what the proper limits are. > > I guess it would need someone running quite a lot of benchmarks. > Anyone volunteering? @) In my original post I noted how it is quite easy to consume the whole 1Gb of RAM on i686 PC (and it's only 4,194,304 entries) it looks like with more IP addresses it is not that hard to consume much more memory. > Or do some cheesy default and document the options to change > it clearly and wait for feedback from users on what works for > them? Kirill