| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:48:37 +0200 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 10:32 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote: > > > > For a trivial hash table I don't know if the abstraction is worth it. > > For a hash table that starts off small and grows as big as you need it > > the incent to use a hash table abstraction seems a lot stronger. > > I'm not sure growing hash tables are worth it. > > In the dcache layer, we have an allocated-at-boot-time sizing thing, > and I have been playing around with a patch that makes the hash table > statically sized (and pretty small). And it actually speeds things up! By the way, anybody tried to tweak vmalloc() (or alloc_large_system_hash()) to use HugePages for those large hash tables ? -- 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