David S. Miller a écrit :
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?
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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[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]
