From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: small RPS cache for fragments? Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 15:03:56 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20110517.143342.1566027350038182221.davem@davemloft.net> <1305663288.2691.2.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1305669140.6741.4.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:29751 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932389Ab1EQWE3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 May 2011 18:04:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1305669140.6741.4.camel@edumazet-laptop> (Eric Dumazet's message of "Tue, 17 May 2011 23:52:20 +0200") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Eric Dumazet writes: >> They're not rwlocks, but especially if the locking was more finegrained >> that's likely not needed anymore. > > Well, there is the rehashing stuff, and this locks the whole table. > > Not easy to switch to rcu or something like that. No need to switch to RCU, just a more finegrained bucket lock. If you move a chain between queues you just lock both for the move. It sounds easy enough. I should probably just code it up. > > Anyway I hardly use frags here at work, so never considered it was a > field to spend time ;) Yes that's the problem. On the other hand most scalability problems hurt sooner or later, so sometimes it's good to fix them in advance. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only