Hi Dave,
On 9/21/2015 4:55 PM, santosh shilimkar wrote:
On 9/21/2015 4:05 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Santosh Shilimkar
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 19:04:42 -0400
Even with per bucket locking scheme, in a massive parallel
system with active rds sockets which could be in excess of multiple
of 10
On 9/21/2015 4:05 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Santosh Shilimkar
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 19:04:42 -0400
Even with per bucket locking scheme, in a massive parallel
system with active rds sockets which could be in excess of multiple
of 10K, rds_bin_lookup() workload is siginificant because of sm
From: Santosh Shilimkar
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 19:04:42 -0400
> Even with per bucket locking scheme, in a massive parallel
> system with active rds sockets which could be in excess of multiple
> of 10K, rds_bin_lookup() workload is siginificant because of smaller
> hashtable size.
>
> With some
On 9/21/2015 1:31 AM, David Laight wrote:
From: Santosh Shilimkar
Sent: 20 September 2015 00:05
Even with per bucket locking scheme, in a massive parallel
system with active rds sockets which could be in excess of multiple
of 10K, rds_bin_lookup() workload is significant because of smaller
hasht
From: Santosh Shilimkar
> Sent: 20 September 2015 00:05
> Even with per bucket locking scheme, in a massive parallel
> system with active rds sockets which could be in excess of multiple
> of 10K, rds_bin_lookup() workload is siginificant because of smaller
> hashtable size.
>
> With some tests, i
