| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140128122623.26029.qmail@science.horizon.com> Date: 28 Jan 2014 07:26:23 -0500 From: "George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com> To: tmac@...com Cc: adilger@...ger.ca, andi@...stfloor.org, linux@...izon.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] ext4: increase mbcache scalability > The third part of the patch further increases the scalablity of an ext4 > filesystem by having each ext4 fielsystem allocate and use its own private > mbcache structure, instead of sharing a single mcache structures across all > ext4 filesystems, and increases the size of its mbcache hash tables. Are you sure this helps? The idea behind having one large mbcache is that one large hash table will always be at least as well balanced as multiple separate tables, if the total size is the same. If you have two size 2^n hash tables, the chance of collision is equal to one size 2^(n+1) table if they're equally busy, and if they're unequally busy. the latter is better. The busier file system will take less time per search, and since it's searcehed more often than the less-busy one, net win. How does it compare with just increasing the hash table size but leaving them combined? -- 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