Hello!
> Is it possible to fix this? Was the 2.2 hash table just that much
> smaller?
2.2 did not use hash tables, holding special single list for /proc.
If I understand correctly it was removed because added more data/work
and new point of synchronization for main path being useful only for /proc.
The approach would be justified, if you had 100000 sockets. In this
case both approaches are equally slow. :-) But for 1000 sockets hash
table of 100000 entries is sort of overscaled.
> Is it possible to fix this?
To fix --- no. To make differently --- yes.
Well, actually, if you are interested drop me a not I can pack for you some
my old work on this. It is fully functional, but api is still dirty.
It requires some patching kernel, unfortunately.
Alexey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:45 EST