From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: paulmck@us.ibm.com, dada1@cosmosbay.com,
alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, torvalds@osdl.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
manfred@colorfullife.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 02:09:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200601070209.02157.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060106.161721.124249301.davem@davemloft.net>
On Saturday 07 January 2006 01:17, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> I mean something like this patch:
Looks like a good idea to me.
I always disliked the per chain spinlocks even for other hash tables like
TCP/UDP multiplex - it would be much nicer to use a much smaller separately
hashed lock table and save cache. In this case the special case of using
a one entry only lock hash table makes sense.
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-07 1:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20060105235845.967478000@sorel.sous-sol.org>
[not found] ` <20060106004555.GD25207@sorel.sous-sol.org>
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601051727070.3169@g5.osdl.org>
2006-01-06 10:17 ` [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency Eric Dumazet
2006-01-06 12:52 ` [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency (Version 2), HOTPLUG_CPU fix Eric Dumazet
2006-01-06 12:58 ` [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency Andi Kleen
2006-01-06 13:09 ` Eric Dumazet
2006-01-06 19:26 ` Lee Revell
2006-01-06 22:18 ` Andi Kleen
2006-01-06 13:37 ` Alan Cox
2006-01-06 14:00 ` Eric Dumazet
2006-01-06 14:45 ` Alan Cox
2006-01-06 16:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2006-01-06 17:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2006-01-06 20:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2006-01-06 20:33 ` David S. Miller
2006-01-06 20:57 ` Andi Kleen
2006-01-07 0:17 ` David S. Miller
2006-01-07 1:09 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2006-01-07 7:10 ` David S. Miller
2006-01-07 7:34 ` Eric Dumazet
2006-01-07 7:44 ` David S. Miller
2006-01-07 7:53 ` Eric Dumazet
2006-01-07 8:36 ` David S. Miller
2006-01-07 20:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2006-01-07 8:30 ` Eric Dumazet
2006-01-06 19:24 ` Lee Revell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200601070209.02157.ak@suse.de \
--to=ak@suse.de \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).