[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111017081205.2e41d03f@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:12:05 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To: Daniel Baluta <dbaluta@...acom.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Mihai Maruseac <mihai.maruseac@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl, therbert@...gle.com, jpirko@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mihai Maruseac <mmaruseac@...acom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dev: use ifindex hash for dev_seq_ops
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:03:54 +0300
Daniel Baluta <dbaluta@...acom.com> wrote:
> > This assumes device ifindexes are contained in a small range
> > [N .. N + X]
> >
> > I understand this can help some benchmarks, but in real world this wont
> > help that much once ifindexes are 'fragmented' (If really this multi
> > thousand devices stuff is for real)
> >
> > Listen, we currently have 256 slots in the hash table.
> >
> > Can we try to make 'offset' something like (slot_number<<24) +
> > (position in hash chain [slot_number]), instead of (position in devices
> > global list)
>
>
> Eric, we can refine the idea of our first patch [1], where we recorded
> the (bucket, offset) pair. Stephen, do you agree with this?
>
>
> thanks,
> Daniel.
>
> [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/118331/
Using buckets is fine, my idea about ifindex was just to try and
preserve the order, but it doesn't matter.
--
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