On 05/12/16 17:28, David Miller wrote:
From: Robert Shearman
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 15:05:18 +
On 01/12/16 12:27, Alexander Duyck wrote:
It has been reported that update_suffix can be expensive when it is
called
on a large node in which most of the suffix lengths are the same. The
time
re
On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 12:28 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Robert Shearman
> Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 15:05:18 +
>
> >
> > On 01/12/16 12:27, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > >
> > > It has been reported that update_suffix can be expensive when it is
> > > called
> > > on a large node in which m
From: Robert Shearman
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 15:05:18 +
> On 01/12/16 12:27, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> It has been reported that update_suffix can be expensive when it is
>> called
>> on a large node in which most of the suffix lengths are the same. The
>> time
>> required to add 200K entries
On 01/12/16 12:27, Alexander Duyck wrote:
It has been reported that update_suffix can be expensive when it is called
on a large node in which most of the suffix lengths are the same. The time
required to add 200K entries had increased from around 3 seconds to almost
49 seconds.
In order to addr
It has been reported that update_suffix can be expensive when it is called
on a large node in which most of the suffix lengths are the same. The time
required to add 200K entries had increased from around 3 seconds to almost
49 seconds.
In order to address this we need to move the code for updati
