[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKbGBLj_KTp7tB+_Qf6161LwbDzzCTKF8SgcPV1Tee6sTYkzNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:02:52 -0700
From: Steven Noonan <steven@...inklabs.net>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:22:39PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
>> No it's not. O(256) equals O(1).
>
> Ok, you're right. Maybe O() was not the right thing to use when trying
> to point out that iterating over 256 hash buckets and then following the
> chain in each bucket per packet broadcast looks like a lot.
>
Heh. I guess you could call it an "expensive O(1)". While big-O
notation is useful for describing algorithm scalability with respect
to input size, it falls flat on its face when trying to articulate
impact in measurable units.
--
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