[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121029130736.GF11733@Krystal>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:07:36 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
davem@...emloft.net, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...e.hu,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, aarcange@...hat.com, ericvh@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, axboe@...nel.dk, agk@...hat.com,
dm-devel@...hat.com, neilb@...e.de, ccaulfie@...hat.com,
teigland@...hat.com, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
bfields@...ldses.org, fweisbec@...il.com, jesse@...ira.com,
venkat.x.venkatsubra@...cle.com, ejt@...hat.com,
snitzer@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
dev@...nvswitch.org, rds-devel@....oracle.com, lw@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 10/16] dlm: use new hashtable implementation
* Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com) wrote:
> * Sasha Levin (levinsasha928@...il.com) wrote:
> [...]
> > @@ -158,34 +159,21 @@ static int dlm_allow_conn;
> > static struct workqueue_struct *recv_workqueue;
> > static struct workqueue_struct *send_workqueue;
> >
> > -static struct hlist_head connection_hash[CONN_HASH_SIZE];
> > +static struct hlist_head connection_hash[CONN_HASH_BITS];
> > static DEFINE_MUTEX(connections_lock);
> > static struct kmem_cache *con_cache;
> >
> > static void process_recv_sockets(struct work_struct *work);
> > static void process_send_sockets(struct work_struct *work);
> >
> > -
> > -/* This is deliberately very simple because most clusters have simple
> > - sequential nodeids, so we should be able to go straight to a connection
> > - struct in the array */
> > -static inline int nodeid_hash(int nodeid)
> > -{
> > - return nodeid & (CONN_HASH_SIZE-1);
> > -}
>
> There is one thing I dislike about this change: you remove a useful
> comment. It's good to be informed of the reason why a direct mapping
> "value -> hash" without any dispersion function is preferred here.
And now that I come to think of it: you're changing the behavior : you
will now use a dispersion function on the key, which goes against the
intent expressed in this comment.
It might be good to change hash_add(), hash_add_rcu(),
hash_for_each_possible*() key parameter for a "hash" parameter, and let
the caller provide the hash value computed by the function they like as
parameter, rather than enforcing hash_32/hash_64.
Thoughts ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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