Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:41:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:41:53 -0500 Received: from mailout11.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.85]:19347 "EHLO mailout11.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:41:52 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:52:21 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: linux-kernel , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: Dcache hash distrubition patches Message-ID: <20030310175221.GA20060@averell> References: <10280000.1047318333@[10.10.2.4]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <10280000.1047318333@[10.10.2.4]> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 536 Lines: 18 > Conclusion: the hash distribution (for this simple test) looks fine > to me. Yes, because of the overkill size of the hash table. With a 100K + entry table you can make near every hash function look good ;) Try to reduce it to a smaller number of buckets and see what happens. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/