On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 01:04:51PM +0200, Robert Olsson wrote:
...
quoted text
>  Yes we keep the old tnode size and the convergence interval was some
>  of the concerns. That why this checks was added. Still we want to
>  inflate the root node to a very max. 
> 
>  So this approach with halving or doubling tnodes towards the root
>  node was the suggest by Dyntree paper. I asked Stefan (one of the
>  authors) if we could get safe and very offensive settings. But 
>  from what I understood there was no easy way to calculate this. 
>  So any bright ideas in this area are very welcome. But we should
>  also monitor size of root and average tree depth so we don't
>  take an to defensive approach just to solve this case.

Yes, but with this offensive approach it seems the current level of
warnings could be too alarming. Btw., because of a design flaw in my
current patch this _fix variable, which should be logically per trie/
table, can be reset by changes of other tables now, but I think it
all could be fine tuned more in the future. Of course if there are
people interested in testing/reporting this more.

Thanks,
Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html