| To: | ralph+d@xxxxxxxxx, ralph@xxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:23:38 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xerox@xxxxxxxxxx, sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.51.0306102115210.18076@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <3EE67D2D.80608@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030610.180120.71112140.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.51.0306102115210.18076@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:17:28 -0400 (EDT) Aren't the read_lock_irqsave and restore expensive? If x86 has an inefficient implementation, well... :-) This can be done without locks, nobody has done the x86 implementation of that that's all. I think the x86_64 folks did a lockless version, I know I did for sparc64 :) |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Ben Greear |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Ralph Doncaster |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |