David Miller a écrit : > From: Eric Dumazet > Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:58:06 +0100 > >> Some subsystems dont need more than 32bits timestamps. >> >> See for example net/ipv4/inetpeer.c and include/net/tcp.h : >> #define tcp_time_stamp ((__u32)(jiffies)) >> >> >> Because most timeouts should work with 'normal jiffies' that are 32bits on >> 32bits platforms, it makes sense to be able to use only 32bits to store them >> and not 64 bits, to save ram. >> >> This patch introduces jiffies_32, and related comparison functions >> time_after32(), time_before32(), time_after_eq32() and time_before_eq32(). >> >> I plan to use this infrastructure in network code for example (struct >> dst_entry comes to mind). > > The TCP case is because the protocol limits the size of > the timestamp we can store in the TCP Timestamp option. > > Otherwise we would use the full 64-bit jiffies timestamp, > in order to have a larger window of values which would not > overflow. > > Since there is no protocol limitation involved in cases > such as dst_entry, I think we should keep it at 64-bits > on 64-bit platforms to make the wrap-around window as > large as possible. > > I really don't see any reason to make these changes. Yes, > you'd save some space, but one of the chief advantages of > 64-bit is that we get larger jiffies value windows. If > that has zero value, as your intended changes imply, then > we shouldn't need the default 64-bit jiffies either, by > implication. Well, just to have similar functions to manipulate jiffies. We already know that using a 32bits dtime in struct inet_peer permited an object size of 64 bytes instead of 128 bytes (on 64bits platforms) On one machine (running linux-2.6.16) I have : # grep peer /proc/slabinfo inet_peer_cache 65972 86220 128 30 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 2874 2874 262 (So the 128 bytes -> 64 bytes is going to save 1437 pages of memory) # grep dst /proc/slabinfo ip_dst_cache 1765818 2077380 320 12 1 : tunables 54 27 8 : slabdata 173115 173115 39 (So saving 4*4 bytes per dst might save 32 MB of ram). I doubt being able to extend the expiration of a dst above 2^32 ticks (49 days if HZ=1000, 198 days if HZ=250) is worth the ram wastage. Dont you prefer to be able to apply this patch for example ? Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet