lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
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 08:56    [W:0.064 / U:2.616 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site