On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 01:11:56PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> You don't need to handle memory allocation failures at the point where
> you insert into the table - adding to a linked list requires no new
> memory.
You do actually. The r in rhashtable stands for resizable. We
cannot completely re
On Thu, Mar 29 2018, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 08:26:21AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>>
>> I say "astronomically unlikely", you say "probability .. is extremely
>> low". I think we are in agreement here.
>>
>> The point remains that if an error *can* be returned then I have to
>>
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 08:26:21AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> I say "astronomically unlikely", you say "probability .. is extremely
> low". I think we are in agreement here.
>
> The point remains that if an error *can* be returned then I have to
> write code to handle it and test that code. I'd
On Wed, Mar 28 2018, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:04:40PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>>
>> I disagree. My patch 6 only makes it common instead of exceedingly
>> rare. If any table in the list other than the first has a chain with 16
>> elements, then trying to insert an element wi
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:04:40PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> I disagree. My patch 6 only makes it common instead of exceedingly
> rare. If any table in the list other than the first has a chain with 16
> elements, then trying to insert an element with a hash which matches
> that chain will fail
On Wed, Mar 28 2018, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:34:19AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>>
>> It is easy to get an -EBUSY insertion failure when .disable_count is
>> enabled, and I did get that. Blindly propagating that up caused lustre
>> to get terribly confused - not too surprising
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:34:19AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> It is easy to get an -EBUSY insertion failure when .disable_count is
> enabled, and I did get that. Blindly propagating that up caused lustre
> to get terribly confused - not too surprising really.
Right, so this failure mode is speci
On Tue, Mar 27 2018, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:33:04AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>> The current rhashtable will fail an insertion if the hashtable
>> it "too full", one of:
>> - table already has 2^31 elements (-E2BIG)
>> - a max_size was specified and table already has that
>
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:33:04AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> The current rhashtable will fail an insertion if the hashtable
> it "too full", one of:
> - table already has 2^31 elements (-E2BIG)
> - a max_size was specified and table already has that
>many elements (rounded up to power of 2) (
The current rhashtable will fail an insertion if the hashtable
it "too full", one of:
- table already has 2^31 elements (-E2BIG)
- a max_size was specified and table already has that
many elements (rounded up to power of 2) (-E2BIG)
- a single chain has more than 16 elements (-EBUSY)
- table
10 matches
Mail list logo
