Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 May 2004 11:55:10 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] dentry and inode cache hash algorithm performance changes. |
| |
"Jose R. Santos" <jrsantos@austin.ibm.com> wrote: > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> [2004-04-30 15:02:56 -0700]: > > Also, I'd be interested in understanding what the input to the hashing > > functions looked like in this testing. It could be that the new hash just > > happens to work well with one particular test's dataset. Please convince > > us otherwise ;) > > Andrew - Is there any workload you want me to run to show that this hash > function is going to be equal or better that the one already provided > in Linux?
Not really - it sounds like you've covered it pretty well. Did you try SDET?
It could be that reducing the hash table size will turn pretty much any workload into a test of the hash quality.
- 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/
| |