Hi Dave,
On 9/21/2015 4:55 PM, santosh shilimkar wrote:
On 9/21/2015 4:05 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilim...@oracle.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 19:04:42 -0400
Even with per bucket locking scheme, in a massive parallel
system with active rds sockets which could be in excess of multiple
of 10K, rds_bin_lookup() workload is siginificant because of smaller
hashtable size.
With some tests, it was found that we get modest but still nice
reduction in rds_bind_lookup with bigger bucket.
Hashtable Baseline(1k) Delta
2048: 8.28% -2.45%
4096: 8.28% -4.60%
8192: 8.28% -6.46%
16384: 8.28% -6.75%
Based on the data, we set 8K as the bind hash-table size.
Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <ssant...@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilim...@oracle.com>
Like others I would strongly prefer that you use a dynamically sized
hash table.
Eating 8k just because a module just happened to get loaded is really
not appropriate.
And there are many other places that use such a scheme, one example is
the AF_NETLINK socket hash table.
OK. Thanks for AF_NETLINK pointer. I will look it up.
I will follow your advice on resizable hash table usage. It seems
to be neat and fits well. But I want to make sure that the
implementation works for all the workloads so it will take
some time. Hopefully I can get that ready with testing for 4.5.
So for now,lets just drop the $subject patch from this
series. Do you want me to resend the series with the $subject
patch dropped, or you can apply rest of the series except
this one.
Let me know. Thanks !!
Regards,
Santosh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
