On 7/24/18 11:14 AM, David Miller wrote: > 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. > Not sure how to do that. I am not aware of memory allocations to a network namespace. As I understand it containers use cgroups to control memory use, but I am not aware of any direct ties to namespace. -- 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
