On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 03:50:38PM +0200, Patrick Schaaf wrote: > > In my opinion, a first step should be to reconsider timeout values but > > also timer mechanisms. > > No. A first step MUST be pointing out that the current timeouts become > a problem in REAL LIFE. Right now you are speculating. On all setups > I personally know, the timeouts are NOT a problem. > > Regarding timer _mechanisms_ I have seen no indication at all that the > current mechanism is a problem. If you want to insist, _please_ learn > about kernel profiling, and start posting FACT.
I've been talking about this with a couple of people here at the kernel summit, and it looks like the per-packet del_timer/add_timer in ip_ct_refresh should be a severe performance hit on SMP boxes. Changing this to 'do not update timer if update would be < HZ different than current timer' is a two-line patch. As stated before, I'm currently away of my testing equipment, so if anybody wants to give it a try... > regards > Patrick -- Live long and prosper - Harald Welte / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ GCS/E/IT d- s-: a-- C+++ UL++++$ P+++ L++++$ E--- W- N++ o? K- w--- O- M- V-- PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP++ t++ 5-- !X !R tv-- b+++ DI? !D G+ e* h+ r% y+(*)
