> > > > IMHO there needs to be a maximum size (maybe related to the sum of > > caches of all CPUs in the system?) > > > > Best would be to fix this for all large system hashes together. > > How about using an algorithm like this: up to a certain "size" > (memory size, cache size,...), scale the hash tables linearly; > but for larger sizes, scale logarithmically (or approximately > logarithmically)
I don't think it makes any sense to continue scaling at all after some point - you won't get better shorter hash chains anymore and the large hash tables actually cause problems: e.g. there are situations where we walk the complete tables and that takes longer and longer. Also does a 1TB machine really need bigger hash tables than a 100GB one? The problem is to find out what a good boundary is. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
