Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:33:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20060106.123332.109879608.davem@davemloft.net>
To: paulmck@us.ibm.com
Cc: dada1@cosmosbay.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, torvalds@osdl.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
       manfred@colorfullife.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20060106202626.GA5677@us.ibm.com>
References: <20060106164702.GA5087@us.ibm.com>
	<43BEA693.5010509@cosmosbay.com>
	<20060106202626.GA5677@us.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 911
Lines: 21

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 12:26:26 -0800

> If not, it may be worthwhile to limit the number of times that
> rt_run_flush() runs per RCU grace period.

This is mixing two sets of requirements.

rt_run_flush() runs periodically in order to regenerate the hash
function secret key.  Now, for that specific case it might actually be
possible to rehash instead of flush, but the locking is a little bit
tricky :-)  And also, I think we're regenerating the secret key
just a little bit too often, I think we'd get enough security
with a less frequent regeneration.

I'll look into this and your other ideas later today hopefully.
-
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/