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
[email protected]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
