David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Ben Greear <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:13:31 -0700
> For machines with large numbers of interfaces (VLANs for instance),
> this could be a real performance drag.
> Have a look at our VLAN implementation before you jump to
> conclusions :-)
At the time I wrote the vlan code, I also wrote a patch to hash the
devices on both index and on name. It made ifconfig of 4k vlans
happen in 20 seconds instead of 25 minutes...but it was not accepted,
and I didn't push the matter...
I am not sure what part of vlan would make the lookup by index not
0(n), unless things have changed significantly since the patch was
> And the route.c case you mention is only when the route
> cache lookup misses (ie. it happens rarely)
I wonder if the rest of the cases are as rare? I know I assumed
that it was not an expensive method to call, though that doesn't
mean everyone designed like that.
So, I still think it would be good to hash.
-- Ben Greear <email@example.com> <Ben_Greear AT excite.com> President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 31 2002 - 22:00:01 EST