Re: [PATCH v7 10/16] dlm: use new hashtable implementation

[David Teigland]

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 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/