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 netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
