| To: | ak@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 23 May 2003 01:22:05 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030523102113.4fe38159.ak@suse.de> |
| References: | <1053602138.9475.34.camel@tux.rsn.bth.se> <20030522.180152.15252868.davem@redhat.com> <20030523102113.4fe38159.ak@suse.de> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 10:21:13 +0200 On Thu, 22 May 2003 18:01:52 -0700 (PDT) "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Actually, get_order() aparently only works on powers of > two, which 'size' is definitely not. Are you sure? I always used it on all kinds of sizes. The algorithm looks for me like it works on any size. A quick test confirms that too. I believe you. Then what does that comment above it mean? :-) |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |