From: David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:14:01 -0600 > I get the impression there is no longer a strong resistance against > moving the tables to per namespace, but deciding what is the right > approach to handle backwards compatibility. Correct? Changing the > accounting is inevitably going to be noticeable to some use case(s), but > with sysctl settings it is a simple runtime update once the user knows > to make the change. > > neighbor entries round up to 512 byte allocations, so with the current > gc_thresh defaults (128/512/1024) 512k can be consumed. Using those > limits per namespace seems high which is why I suggested a per-namespace > default of (16/32/64) which amounts to 32k per namespace limit by > default. Open to other suggestions as well. No objection from me about going to per-ns neigh tables. About the defaults, I wonder if we can scale them to the amount of memory given to the ns or something like that? I bet this will better match the intended use of the ns. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wpan" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
