Re: [RFC 1/4] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

[Eric Dumazet]

On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 10:32 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > For a trivial hash table I don't know if the abstraction is worth it.
> > For a hash table that starts off small and grows as big as you need it
> > the incent to use a hash table abstraction seems a lot stronger.
> 
> I'm not sure growing hash tables are worth it.
> 
> In the dcache layer, we have an allocated-at-boot-time sizing thing,
> and I have been playing around with a patch that makes the hash table
> statically sized (and pretty small). And it actually speeds things up!

By the way, anybody tried to tweak vmalloc() (or
alloc_large_system_hash()) to use HugePages for those large hash
tables ?



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/