[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v7 09/16] SUNRPC/cache: use new hashtable implementation
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm linux-foundation org>
- To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds linux-foundation org>
- Cc: snitzer redhat com, fweisbec gmail com, Trond Myklebust netapp com, bfields fieldses org, paul gortmaker windriver com, dm-devel redhat com, agk redhat com, aarcange redhat com, rds-devel oss oracle com, eric dumazet gmail com, venkat x venkatsubra oracle com, ccaulfie redhat com, mingo elte hu, dev openvswitch org, jesse nicira com, josh joshtriplett org, rostedt goodmis org, lw cn fujitsu com, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu desnoyers efficios com>, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928 gmail com>, axboe kernel dk, linux-nfs vger kernel org, edumazet google com, linux-mm kvack org, netdev vger kernel org, linux-kernel vger kernel org, ejt redhat com, ebiederm xmission com, tj kernel org, teigland redhat com, davem davemloft net
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v7 09/16] SUNRPC/cache: use new hashtable implementation
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:27:58 -0700
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:49:42 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds linux-foundation org> wrote:
> Because there's no reason to believe that '9' is in any way a worse
> random number than something page-shift-related, is there?
9 is much better than PAGE_SHIFT. PAGE_SIZE can vary by a factor of
16, depending on config.
Everyone thinks 4k, and tests only for that. There's potential for
very large performance and behavior changes when their code gets run
on a 64k PAGE_SIZE machine.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]