#25009: I think KIST can use hash tables much less. --------------------------+------------------------------------ Reporter: nickm | Owner: nickm Type: defect | Status: accepted Priority: Medium | Milestone: Tor: 0.3.3.x-final Component: Core Tor/Tor | Version: Severity: Normal | Resolution: Keywords: 032-backport | Actual Points: Parent ID: #23777 | Points: Reviewer: | Sponsor: --------------------------+------------------------------------ Changes (by nickm):
* status: new => accepted * owner: (none) => nickm Old description: > It shows up in our malloc profile (#23777), where I hadn't been expecting > to see it. New description: Originally, I observed that outbuf_table_add shows up in our malloc profile (#23777), where I hadn't been expecting to see it. After a little more thinking, I'm wondering why we have outbuf_table and socket_table at all: The contents of socket_table_ent could become a member of channel_t, and save us a hashtable lookup there. The outbuf_table could become a smartlist with a corresponding index pointer in channel_t, since we're basically using it as an unordered set. -- -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/25009#comment:1> Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/> The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________ tor-bugs mailing list tor-bugs@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs