![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:34:12AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > Did you actually do some statistics how long the hash chains are? > Just increasing hash tables blindly has other bad side effects, like > increasing cache misses. Yep, the gory details are at: http://oss.oracle.com/~mfasheh/lock_distribution.csv This measure was taken about 18,000 locks into a kernel untar. The only change was that I switched things to only hash the last 18 characters of lock resource names. In short things aren't so bad that a larger hash table wouldn't help. We've definitely got some peaks however. Our in-house laboratory of mathematicians (read: Bill Irwin) is checking out methods by which we can smooth things out a bit more :) --Mark -- Mark Fasheh Senior Software Developer, Oracle mark.fasheh@oracle.com - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-03-07 05:02 [W:1.137 / U:0.020 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||