![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andi Kleen a écrit : > > I always disliked the per chain spinlocks even for other hash tables like > TCP/UDP multiplex - it would be much nicer to use a much smaller separately > hashed lock table and save cache. In this case the special case of using > a one entry only lock hash table makes sense. > I agree, I do use a hashed spinlock array on my local tree for TCP, mainly to reduce the hash table size by a 2 factor. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-01-07 07:37 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||