Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency

From: Andi Kleen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 02:09:01 +0100

On Saturday 07 January 2006 01:17, David S. Miller wrote:

> 
> I mean something like this patch:

Looks like a good idea to me.

I always disliked the per chain spinlocks even for other hash tables like
TCP/UDP multiplex - it would be much nicer to use a much smaller separately 
hashed lock table and save cache. In this case the special case of using
a one entry only lock hash table makes sense.

-Andi