From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@us.ibm.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Scale pidhash_shift/pidhash_size up based on num_possible_cpus().
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:59:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m14p64zetj.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080801191336.GK10501@sgi.com> (Robin Holt's message of "Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:13:36 -0500")
Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com> writes:
> Oops, confusing details. That was a different problem we had been
> tracking.
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-01 20:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-31 17:00 [Patch] Scale pidhash_shift/pidhash_size up based on num_possible_cpus() Robin Holt
2008-07-31 18:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-07-31 19:32 ` Robin Holt
2008-07-31 19:49 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-07-31 20:08 ` Robin Holt
2008-07-31 22:04 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-08-01 12:04 ` Robin Holt
2008-08-01 18:27 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-08-01 19:13 ` Robin Holt
2008-08-01 19:59 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2008-08-04 13:11 ` Stephen Champion
2008-08-04 20:36 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-08-04 23:58 ` Robin Holt
2008-08-05 0:38 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-08-06 3:21 ` Stephen Champion
2008-08-01 18:49 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m14p64zetj.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=holt@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=sukadev@us.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=xemul@openvz.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.