![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 11:50:58AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org> > 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-09-23 23:33 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||