From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:34:14 +0200
> But please check the memset() is there, or else... panic for sure.
It got added by patch 2/3.
So if I had actually applied the "fixed" version of patch 1/3 which
contained the memset(), then patch 2/3 would not have a
David S. Miller a écrit :
From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:30:23 +0200
[NET] hashed spinlocks in net/ipv4/route.c
- Locking abstraction
- Spinlocks moved out of rt hash table : Less memory (50%) used by rt hash
table. it's a win even on UP.
- Sizing of spinl
From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:30:23 +0200
> [NET] hashed spinlocks in net/ipv4/route.c
> - Locking abstraction
> - Spinlocks moved out of rt hash table : Less memory (50%) used by rt hash
> table. it's a win even on UP.
> - Sizing of spinlocks table depend
Eric Dumazet writes:
> I wonder which part of the patch you think would change the performance ?
> There is no change in the fast path. The spinlocks are taken where they were
> taken.
Was interested in the performance effects of hashed spinlocks... as I didn't
see much win with rDoS that
