Return-path: Received: from rhun.apana.org.au ([64.62.148.172]:36593 "EHLO arnor.apana.org.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752351AbYGULgL (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:36:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:36:00 +0800 From: Herbert Xu To: jamal Cc: kaber@trash.net, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, johannes@sipsolutions.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/31]: pkt_sched: Perform bulk of qdisc destruction in RCU. Message-ID: <20080721113600.GA10322@gondor.apana.org.au> (sfid-20080721_133615_684428_705E2151) References: <1216568119.4847.101.camel@localhost> <20080721001119.GA6515@gondor.apana.org.au> <1216607637.4847.172.camel@localhost> <20080721031716.GA7535@gondor.apana.org.au> <1216638879.4847.210.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1216638879.4847.210.camel@localhost> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 07:14:39AM -0400, jamal wrote: > > > Only if you also want to share it :) In the end I patched it to > > not share it which is much easier. > > I am trying to visualize: if you dont share, you must have 256K copies > then? Assuming also you have a fast lookup since that was design intent. They can't be shared anyway because each of those 256K rules NATs to a different IP address. > #ifdef CONFIG_HASH_SIZE > #define NAT_TAB_MASK CONFIGURED_HASH_SIZE > #else > #define NAT_TAB_MASK 15 > #endif > > What do you think? Sorry, I think I'll have to poke my eyes out :) But yeah if we ever get a generic dynamic hash table implmenetation then I'd be happy for act_nat to use that. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt