From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752490AbcCHNCl (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 08:02:41 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54679 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751504AbcCHNCb (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 08:02:31 -0500 Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <29908.1457437197@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <29908.1457437197@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20160307.230737.1738396720590983620.davem@davemloft.net> <20160307143759.18567.8234.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20160307143806.18567.30020.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <23389.1457390714@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, David Miller , 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <30371.1457442148.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 13:02:28 +0000 Message-ID: <30372.1457442148@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. David