Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 07 Apr 2019 19:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20190407.191255.1243683680105907349.davem@davemloft.net>
To:     neilb@suse.com
Cc:     tgraf@suug.ch, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4 v2] Convert rhashtable to use bitlocks
From:   David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <155416000985.9540.14182958463813560577.stgit@noble.brown>
References: <155416000985.9540.14182958463813560577.stgit@noble.brown>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 10:07:45 +1100

> This series converts rhashtable to use a per-bucket bitlock
> rather than a separate array of spinlocks.
> This:
>   reduces memory usage
>   results in slightly fewer memory accesses
>   slightly improves parallelism
>   makes a configuration option unnecessary
> 
> The main change from previous version is to use a distinct type for
> the pointer in the bucket which has a bit-lock in it.  This
> helped find two places where rht_ptr() was missed, one
> in  rhashtable_free_and_destroy() in print_ht in the test code.

This looks good to me and I haven't seen any major objections.

I think however the thing is encoded, an unsigned long or a pointer,
the cleanliness is basically a wash.

Thanks.