[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121029162344.GC3516@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:23:44 -0400
From: David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
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,
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 12:07:10PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> I'm fine with turning a direct + modulo mapping into a dispersed hash as
> long as there are no underlying assumptions about sequentiality of value
> accesses.
>
> If the access pattern would happen to be typically sequential, then
> adding dispersion could hurt performances significantly, turning a
> frequent L1 access into a L2 access for instance.
> All I'm asking is: have you made sure that this hash table is not
> deliberately kept sequential (without dispersion) to accelerate specific
> access patterns ? This should at least be documented in the changelog.
It was not intentional. I don't expect any benefit would be lost by
making it non-sequential.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists