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. > 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 > 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.
_______________________________________________ autofs mailing list autofs@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
