David Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Dave Johnson <[email protected]>
>>
>> The below patch changes rt_run_flush() to only take each spinlock
>> protecting the rt_hash_table once instead of taking a spinlock for
>> every hash table bucket (and ending up taking the same small set
>> of locks over and over).
...
> I'm not ignoring it I'm just trying to brainstorm whether there
> is a better way to resolve this inefficiency. :-)
The main problem I see with this is having to walk and free each
chain with the lock held. We could avoid this if we had a pointer
in struct rtable to chain them up for freeing later.
I just checked and struct rtable is 236 bytes long on 32-bit but
the slab cache pads it to 256 bytes so we've got some free space.
I suspect 64-bit should be similar.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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]
