On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:19 PM David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Amit Klein
> > Sent: 16 June 2021 10:17
> ...
> > -#define IP_IDENTS_SZ 2048u
> > -
> > +/* Hash tables of size 2048..262144 depending on RAM size.
> > + * Each bucket uses 8 bytes.
> > + */
> > +static u32 ip_idents_mask __read_mostly;
> ...
> > + /* For modern hosts, this will use 2 MB of memory */
> > + idents_hash = alloc_large_system_hash("IP idents",
> > + sizeof(*ip_idents) + sizeof(*ip_tstamps),
> > + 0,
> > + 16, /* one bucket per 64 KB */
> > + HASH_ZERO,
> > + NULL,
> > + &ip_idents_mask,
> > + 2048,
> > + 256*1024);
> > +
>
> Can someone explain why this is a good idea for a 'normal' system?
>
> Why should my desktop system 'waste' 2MB of memory on a massive
> hash table that I don't need.
Only if your desktop has a lot of RAM.
Otherwise the table will be smaller (like it was before this patch)
> It might be needed by systems than handle massive numbers
> of concurrent connections - but that isn't 'most systems'.
>
> Surely it would be better to detect when the number of entries
> is comparable to the table size and then resize the table.
Please send a patch, instead of always complaining about what others do.
Security comes first.
Then eventually we can ' optimize' .
>
> David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
