[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 :
> Eric, how important do you honestly think the per-hashchain spinlocks
> are? That's the big barrier from making rt_secret_rebuild() a simple
> rehash instead of flushing the whole table as it does now.

No problem for me in going to a single spinlock.
I did the hashed spinlock patch in order to reduce the size of the route hash
table and not hurting big NUMA machines. If you think a single spinlock is OK,
that's even better !

> The lock is only grabbed for updates, and the access to these locks is
> random and as such probably non-local when taken anyways. Back before
> we used RCU for reads, this array-of-spinlock thing made a lot more
> sense.
> I mean something like this patch:

> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(rt_hash_lock);

Just one point : This should be cache_line aligned, and use one full cache
line to avoid false sharing at least. (If a cpu takes the lock, no need to
invalidate *rt_hash_table for all other cpus)

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 09:32    [W:0.052 / U:8.132 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site