[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:0.062 / U:1.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site