On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, David S. Miller wrote: > Ok. You're going to have to come up with something better > than a %3 AIM benchmark increase with 5000 threads to justify > those invasive NUMA changes, and thus this infrastructure for > it. I am sure one can do better than that. The x445 is the smallest NUMA box that I know of and the only one available in the context of that project. But I am also not sure that this will reach proportions that will outweigh the complexity added by these patches. What would be the performance benefit that we would need to see to feel that is is right to get such a change in? > I'm picking those examples, because I am rather certain your patches > will hurt performance in those cases. The data structure size > expansion and extra memory allocations alone for the per-node dst > stuff should be good about doing that. Hmm. I like the idea of a separate routing cache per node. May actually reach higher performance than splitting the counters. Lets think a bit about that. - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
