[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1343929717.9299.358.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
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