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
|