From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 08:53:52 +0100 Message-ID: <43BF7390.6050005@cosmosbay.com> References: <20060106.161721.124249301.davem@davemloft.net> <200601070209.02157.ak@suse.de> <43BF6F0B.4060108@cosmosbay.com> <20060106.234440.53993868.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: ak@suse.de, paulmck@us.ibm.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 Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20060106.234440.53993868.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David S. Miller a =E9crit : > From: Eric Dumazet > Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 08:34:35 +0100 >=20 >> 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. >=20 > 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=20 you sure big machines wont suffer from this single spinlock ? Also I dont understand what you want to do after this single spinlock p= atch. 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 :=20 slabdata 51870 51870 0 Eric