Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 01:11:39 -0700
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
       linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MM : alloc_large_system_hash() can free some memory for non power-of-two bucketsize
Message-ID: <20070521081139.GG19966@holomorphy.com>
References: <20070518115454.d3e32f4d.dada1@cosmosbay.com> <20070519182123.GD19966@holomorphy.com> <464F44BD.3040209@cosmosbay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <464F44BD.3040209@cosmosbay.com>
Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 837
Lines: 21

William Lee Irwin III a ?crit :
>> The proper way to do this is to convert the large system hashtable
>> users to use some data structure / algorithm  other than hashing by
>> separate chaining.

On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 08:41:01PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> No thanks. This was already discussed to death on netdev. To date, hash 
> tables are a good compromise.
> I dont mind losing part of memory, I prefer to keep good performance when 
> handling 1.000.000 or more tcp sessions.

The data structures perform well enough, but I suppose it's not worth
pushing the issue this way.


-- wli
-
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/