On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:07:10PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> I'm fine with turning a direct + modulo mapping into a dispersed hash as
> long as there are no underlying assumptions about sequentiality of value
> accesses.
>
> If the access pattern would happen to be typically sequential,
* Sasha Levin (levinsasha...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> wrote:
> > * Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com) wrote:
> >> * Sasha Levin (levinsasha...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > @@ -158,34 +159,21 @@ static int dlm_allow_conn;
> >>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com) wrote:
>> * Sasha Levin (levinsasha...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> [...]
>> > @@ -158,34 +159,21 @@ static int dlm_allow_conn;
>> > static struct workqueue_struct *recv_workqueue;
>> >
* Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com) wrote:
> * Sasha Levin (levinsasha...@gmail.com) wrote:
> [...]
> > @@ -158,34 +159,21 @@ static int dlm_allow_conn;
> > static struct workqueue_struct *recv_workqueue;
> > static struct workqueue_struct *send_workqueue;
> >
> > -static
* Sasha Levin (levinsasha...@gmail.com) wrote:
[...]
> @@ -158,34 +159,21 @@ static int dlm_allow_conn;
> static struct workqueue_struct *recv_workqueue;
> static struct workqueue_struct *send_workqueue;
>
> -static struct hlist_head connection_hash[CONN_HASH_SIZE];
> +static struct hlist_head
* Sasha Levin (levinsasha...@gmail.com) wrote:
[...]
@@ -158,34 +159,21 @@ static int dlm_allow_conn;
static struct workqueue_struct *recv_workqueue;
static struct workqueue_struct *send_workqueue;
-static struct hlist_head connection_hash[CONN_HASH_SIZE];
+static struct hlist_head
* Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com) wrote:
* Sasha Levin (levinsasha...@gmail.com) wrote:
[...]
@@ -158,34 +159,21 @@ static int dlm_allow_conn;
static struct workqueue_struct *recv_workqueue;
static struct workqueue_struct *send_workqueue;
-static struct
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com wrote:
* Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com) wrote:
* Sasha Levin (levinsasha...@gmail.com) wrote:
[...]
@@ -158,34 +159,21 @@ static int dlm_allow_conn;
static struct workqueue_struct
* Sasha Levin (levinsasha...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com wrote:
* Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com) wrote:
* Sasha Levin (levinsasha...@gmail.com) wrote:
[...]
@@ -158,34 +159,21 @@ static int
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:07:10PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
I'm fine with turning a direct + modulo mapping into a dispersed hash as
long as there are no underlying assumptions about sequentiality of value
accesses.
If the access pattern would happen to be typically sequential, then
Switch dlm to use the new hashtable implementation. This reduces the amount of
generic unrelated code in the dlm.
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
---
fs/dlm/lowcomms.c | 47 +--
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
diff --git
Switch dlm to use the new hashtable implementation. This reduces the amount of
generic unrelated code in the dlm.
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com
---
fs/dlm/lowcomms.c | 47 +--
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
diff
12 matches
Mail list logo