From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751519AbcCHUPZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 15:15:25 -0500 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:44268 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751434AbcCHUPR (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 15:15:17 -0500 Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 15:15:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20160308.151514.2100824747766658409.davem@davemloft.net> To: dhowells@redhat.com Cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] rxrpc: Add a common object cache From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <30372.1457442148@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <20160307143806.18567.30020.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <23389.1457390714@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <30372.1457442148@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.6 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Tue, 08 Mar 2016 12:15:16 -0800 (PST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: David Howells Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 13:02:28 +0000 > David Howells wrote: > >> Does it make sense to maintain a FIFO list of connections (though this would >> mean potentially taking a spinlock every time I get a packet)? > > It occurs to me that only inactive connections would need to be on an LRU > list. Any connection with packets or active calls to deal with wouldn't be on > the list. In that kind of scheme you have to decide if it's possible to elide a response in order to intentionally keep objects off the "inactive" LRU list. I bet there is.