[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+1xoqfxgB+8BybPpf+jwT-ObfGPxnbKvkz1MUMuJuR8NDSNaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:53:54 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.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
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> * 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.
Yes, I've removed the comment because it's no longer true with the patch :)
> 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.
The comment gave us the information that nodeids are mostly
sequential, we no longer need to rely on that.
> 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.
Why? We already proved that hash_32() is more than enough as a hashing
function, why complicate things?
Even doing hash_32() on top of another hash is probably a good idea to
keep things simple.
Thanks,
Sasha
--
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