Re: [Patch] Scale pidhash_shift/pidhash_size up based on num_possible_cpus().

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Eric W. Biederman
Date: Friday, August 1, 2008 - 12:59 pm

Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com> writes:


Which leads back to the original question.  What were you measuring
that showed improvement with a larger pid hash size?

Almost by definition a larger hash table will perform better.  However
my intuition is that we are talking about something that should be in
the noise for most workloads.

Eric
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [Patch] Scale pidhash_shift/pidhash_size up based on n ..., Eric W. Biederman, (Thu Jul 31, 11:35 am)
Re: [Patch] Scale pidhash_shift/pidhash_size up based on n ..., Eric W. Biederman, (Thu Jul 31, 12:49 pm)
Re: [Patch] Scale pidhash_shift/pidhash_size up based on n ..., Eric W. Biederman, (Thu Jul 31, 3:04 pm)
Re: [Patch] Scale pidhash_shift/pidhash_size up based on n ..., Eric W. Biederman, (Fri Aug 1, 11:27 am)
Re: [Patch] Scale pidhash_shift/pidhash_size up based on n ..., Eric W. Biederman, (Fri Aug 1, 12:59 pm)