[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m14p64zetj.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:59:52 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Scale pidhash_shift/pidhash_size up based on num_possible_cpus().
Robin Holt <holt@....com> writes:
> Oops, confusing details. That was a different problem we had been
> tracking.
Which leads back to the original question. What were you measuring
that showed improvement with a larger pid hash size?
Almost by definition a larger hash table will perform better. However
my intuition is that we are talking about something that should be in
the noise for most workloads.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists