On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 11:50:58AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:40:52 -0700
>
>
> I worry about real life sites, such as a big web server, that will by
> definition have hundreds of thousands of routing cache (and thus
> 'dst') entries active.
>
> The memory usage will increase, and that's particularly bad in this
> kind of case because unlike the 'lo' benchmarks you won't have nodes
> and cpus fighting over access to the same routes. In such a load
> the bigrefs are just wasted memory and aren't actually needed.
Point taken. That is the reason I have excluded the dst patches in this
patchset. The problem with dst.__refcount stays and we should probably look
for some other approach rather than thinking per-cpu/per-node counters for
this.
But the patch in question now is net_device refcount. Surely that doesn't
affect webservers with many dst entries.
>
> I really would like to encourage a move away from this fascination
> with optimizating the loopback interface performance on enormous
> systems, yes even if it is hit hard by the benchmarks. It just
> means the benchmarks are wrong, not that we should optimize for
> them.
Benchmarks could be wrong, but we don't control what people run.
And there are apps which use lo (for whatever reason) :(.
Thanks,
Kiran
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |