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]