![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 10:32, Harald Welte wrote: > I totally agree, that from a current perspective, I think the concept of > just loading a module (that has usage count 0) having severe impact on > system performance is just wrong. But then, users are used to the > current behaviour for almost five years now. That doesn't mean it cannot be improved - and I think it should. In a sense it's even getting worse: For example us losing the CONFIG option to disable local conntrack (Patrick has disabled it some time ago without even a comment why he did it) has a really bad impact in some cases. > Therefore: Let's do this right next time, but live with that fact for > now. Even with a "quite straight-forward" (quoting you) fix? > Just imagine all those poor sysadmins who know nothing about current > kernel development, and who upgrade their kernel because their > distributor provides a new one - suddenly their accounting (which might > be relevant for their business) doesn't work anymore :( Accounting with per CPU counters can be done fully lockless. -Andi - 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: 2005-09-28 10:39 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||