Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751961AbWCJK10 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2006 05:27:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752200AbWCJK1Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2006 05:27:25 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:45894 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751961AbWCJK1Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2006 05:27:25 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent: x-accept-language:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to: content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=bIpEm5Ytek9q3CwIiOroow+0IR55qMtvR+Ev3QcQMu8nN9ksPYHIO0YaWsyg5mdjQ B+Pm50K5VukT5aOaylByA== Message-ID: <44115475.7040804@google.com> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:27:01 -0800 From: Daniel Phillips User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051011) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "J. Bruce Fields" CC: Mark Fasheh , Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Ocfs2 performance bugs of doom References: <4408C2E8.4010600@google.com> <20060303233617.51718c8e.akpm@osdl.org> <440B9035.1070404@google.com> <20060306025800.GA27280@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <440BC1C6.1000606@google.com> <20060306195135.GB27280@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <20060307045835.GF27280@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <440FCA81.7090608@google.com> <20060310023305.GB28722@fieldses.org> In-Reply-To: <20060310023305.GB28722@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 751 Lines: 21 J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:26:09PM -0800, Daniel Phillips wrote: >>A poor distribution as you already noticed[1]. > > How did you decide that? I looked at it and jumped to the wrong conclusion :-) When I actually simulated it I found that the distribution is in fact not much different from what I get from rand. So much for trying to pin the blame on the hash function. Next lets try to pin the blame on vmalloc. (Spoiler: it's not vmalloc's fault either.) Regards, Daniel - 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/