On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 16:07 +1100, Paul Wankadia wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> wrote: > > > Why do you think that you've miscalculated the minimum? > > Well, maybe I haven't but I thought min should be > 0. > But, it's not worth worrying about as I think we've managed to > show a > clear improvement. > > The minimum was zero because there were empty buckets.
Probably, but I used a separate variable to count zero buckets so the chain lengths should be at least 1, but hey, unless the analysis here is wrong (and I don't think it is) I'm not not going to spend time on it. > > > > I plotted the number of elements in each bucket. > > > > As you now see, the additive hash function doesn't scale. > > Sure and now we can say why it doesn't scale in the patch > description. > > More importantly, who's the scapegoat? :P That would be me, ;) > > > > Perhaps you could make it configurable? > > Perhaps, but I don't think this is the sort of thing that > should be > configurable so I'd prefer to make it a compile time option > rather than > a run time configuration setting. > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> wrote: > > I've changed my mind, ;), configurable it is with a default of > 977. > > The hash function is good now, so the size of the hash table can be a > power of two. So your suggesting 1024 then, does it matter? Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list autofs@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs