[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
David S. Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <>
> 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

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-07 08:56    [W:0.058 / U:10.228 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site