[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: andrea buffer code (2.2.9-C.gz)
    On Wed, 19 May 1999, Manfred Spraul wrote:

    > > You know: to scale better you need to waste
    > > more memory :-).

    > Then you have NT: They prove that if you decide everywhere 'scale'
    > instead of 'effective', the result becomes bloated & not much faster.

    Indeed. In cases like these, might it make some sense to have some fixed
    number of spinlocks and choose which to use with some reductive function?
    You'd probably want something with a little less overhead than the usual
    hash functions, of course, but 1K locks or so might well perform better
    that one or 32K of them.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.018 / U:9.908 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site