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

Eric Dumazet
2006-01-07T07:54:01Z

David S. Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
> 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