On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 10:32 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Eric W. Biederman <ebied...@xmission.com> > wrote: > > > > For a trivial hash table I don't know if the abstraction is worth it. > > For a hash table that starts off small and grows as big as you need it > > the incent to use a hash table abstraction seems a lot stronger. > > I'm not sure growing hash tables are worth it. > > In the dcache layer, we have an allocated-at-boot-time sizing thing, > and I have been playing around with a patch that makes the hash table > statically sized (and pretty small). And it actually speeds things up!
By the way, anybody tried to tweak vmalloc() (or alloc_large_system_hash()) to use HugePages for those large hash tables ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
