| To: | acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH][RFC 2] cleaning up struct sock |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 17 Dec 2001 22:51:34 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | SteveW@xxxxxxx, jschlst@xxxxxxxxx, ncorbic@xxxxxxxxxxx, eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, dag@xxxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, marcelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20011218033552.B910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20011210230810.C896@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20011210.231826.55509210.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20011218033552.B910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 03:35:52 -0200 the only thing that still has to be done is to remove things like daddr, saddr, rcv_saddr, dport, sport and other ipv4 specific members of struct sock Actually, I'd like to keep the first couple cache lines of struct sock the way it is :-( For hash lookups the identity + the hash next pointer fit perfectly in one cache line on nearly all platforms. Which brings me to... Please let me know if this is something acceptable for 2.5. What kind of before/after effect do you see in lat_tcp/lat_connect (from lmbench) runs? Franks a lot, David S. Miller davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH][RFC 2] cleaning up struct sock, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH][RFC 2] cleaning up struct sock, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH][RFC 2] cleaning up struct sock, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH][RFC 2] cleaning up struct sock, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |