Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency

From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
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?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
    • From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
    • From: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
    • From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch 0/4] Series to allow a "const" file_operations struct
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/3] updated *at function patch
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]