[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091203163728.44a9c0f1@nehalam>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:37:28 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] llc: use a device based hash table to speed up
multicast delivery
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 01:53:11 +0200
Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com> wrote:
> On Friday 04 December 2009 01:25:13 you wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 00:31:37 +0200
> >
> > Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com> wrote:
> > > This patch adds a per SAP device based hash table to solve the
> > > multicast delivery scalability issues for the case where the are a
> > > large number of interfaces and a large number of sockets (bound to the
> > > same SAP) are used.
> >
> > Rather than adding hash table and rwlock, why not hash list RCU
> > and a single spin lock
> >
>
> I have a partial version with RCU and single spinlock, but then I ran into a
> (Eric's I think) patch which moved the UDP lock per bucket. And since RCU
> can't help on the write side (in this instance each time we bound or delete
> the socket) it was not clear to me what is the best approach.
The lock is held for such a brief period on connection setup that a single
spinlock is probably ok.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists