From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Dichtel Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] dev: add support of flag IFF_NOPROC Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 14:07:00 +0200 Message-ID: <524EAF64.8000801@6wind.com> References: <1380806905-4461-1-git-send-email-nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com> <20131003104627.411f5cc4@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <20131003.150947.2179820478039260398.davem@davemloft.net> Reply-To: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller , stephen@networkplumber.org Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175]:51070 "EHLO mail-wi0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754310Ab3JDMHE (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:07:04 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ez12so1505324wid.2 for ; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 05:07:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131003.150947.2179820478039260398.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 03/10/2013 21:09, David Miller a =E9crit : > From: Stephen Hemminger > Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:46:27 -0700 > >> What about speeding up proc or sysfs? Or providing a bulk create/des= troy. > > +1 +1 +1 > > This will benefit more people than the just the envisioned users for > this IFF_NOPROC thing. > > I really don't want to take the IFF_NOPROC approach. > Of course optimizing /proc and /sysfs is a good option, but any optimiz= ations will never be as fast as disabling them for some well known netdevices. Note also that the memory consumption is significantly less with this f= lag: for 20000 dummy interfaces: without the flag: 463,84Mo with the flag: 297,45Mo the gain is 166Mo (35%)