Re: [PATCH v7 09/16] SUNRPC/cache: use new hashtable implementation

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:13:43AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Linus Torvalds (torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> > <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > So defining e.g.:
> > >
> > > #include <linux/log2.h>
> > >
> > > #define DFR_HASH_BITS  (PAGE_SHIFT - ilog2(BITS_PER_LONG))
> > >
> > > would keep the intended behavior in all cases: use one page for the hash
> > > array.
> > 
> > Well, since that wasn't true before either because of the long-time
> > bug you point out, clearly the page size isn't all that important. I
> > think it's more important to have small and simple code, and "9" is
> > certainly that, compared to playing ilog2 games with not-so-obvious
> > things.
> > 
> > Because there's no reason to believe that '9' is in any way a worse
> > random number than something page-shift-related, is there? And getting
> > away from *previous* overly-complicated size calculations that had
> > been broken because they were too complicated and random, sounds like
> > a good idea.
> 
> Good point. I agree that unless we really care about the precise number
> of TLB entries and cache lines used by this hash table, we might want to
> stay away from page-size and pointer-size based calculation.
>
> It might not hurt to explain this in the patch changelog though.

I'd also be happy to take that as a separate patch now.

--b.
--
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/