Re: Route cache performance

[Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello!

> Yes sounds famliar XEON with e1000... So why not for 2.6?

Most likely, something is broken in the e1000 driver. Otherwise, no ideas.

>  I think we saw this before. I proposed disabling deferred deletions
>  as with the patch I sent for UP. 

I do not see _why_. Apparently some overhead is present but I do not
understand why it is so large. Is it just because 300 redundant entries
pollute cache a little more? I do not see another reasons.

Maybe it makes sense to compare this effect with the effect of increment
gc_elasticity by 1. If it is due to cache pollution, effect of increment
of gc_elasticity, which increses size of cache by rhash_size should be
even worse.

Alexey