| To: | yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 09 Jun 2003 03:40:39 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | ak@xxxxxxx, sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xerox@xxxxxxxxxx, fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030609.194046.29425359.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20030609101302.GA9643@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030609.031341.77044985.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030609.194046.29425359.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 19:40:46 +0900 (JST)
Ok, how about this?
The memset_tail thing is unnecessary, and better to put the
non-zero objects at the beginning then you can go.
memset(dst->${FIRST_ZERO_MEMBER}, 0,
ops->entry_size -
offsetof(struct dst_entry, ${FIRST_ZERO_MEMBER}));
But even _THIS_ is stupid. All this initialization really should
move to caller. We can provide a "dst_init()" helper for protocols
that don't want to bother optimizing this.
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Route cache performance under stress, Jamal Hadi |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |