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

Reply via email to