![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
David S. Miller a écrit : > From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> > Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 08:34:35 +0100 > >> 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. > > So what do you think about going to a single spinlock for the > routing cache? I have no problem with this, since the biggest server I have is 4 way, but are you sure big machines wont suffer from this single spinlock ? Also I dont understand what you want to do after this single spinlock patch. How is it supposed to help the 'ip route flush cache' problem ? In my case, I have about 600.000 dst-entries : # grep ip_dst /proc/slabinfo ip_dst_cache 616250 622440 320 12 1 : tunables 54 27 8 : slabdata 51870 51870 0 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 07:56 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||