| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 23 May 2003 11:03:01 +0200 |
| Cc: | gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030523.012205.123984853.davem@redhat.com> |
| References: | <1053602138.9475.34.camel@tux.rsn.bth.se> <20030522.180152.15252868.davem@redhat.com> <20030523102113.4fe38159.ak@suse.de> <20030523.012205.123984853.davem@redhat.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 23 May 2003 01:22:05 -0700 (PDT) "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I believe you. > > Then what does that comment above it mean? :-) I guess it refers to the implementation, not the code. For pure 2^n you could implement it much more efficiently using ffz() (not that it really matters of course, most orders are 0) -Andi |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |