From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:63116 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932495Ab2J2QYm (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:24:42 -0400
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:23:44 -0400
From: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        tj@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, davem@davemloft.net,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@elte.hu, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        aarcange@redhat.com, ericvh@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
        agk@redhat.com, dm-devel@redhat.com, neilb@suse.de,
        ccaulfie@redhat.com, Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com, bfields@fieldses.org,
        fweisbec@gmail.com, jesse@nicira.com, venkat.x.venkatsubra@oracle.com,
        ejt@redhat.com, snitzer@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, dev@openvswitch.org,
        rds-devel@oss.oracle.com, lw@cn.fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 10/16] dlm: use new hashtable implementation
Message-ID: <20121029162344.GC3516@redhat.com>
References: <1351450948-15618-1-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com>
 <1351450948-15618-10-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com>
 <20121029124655.GD11733@Krystal>
 <20121029130736.GF11733@Krystal>
 <CA+1xoqfxgB+8BybPpf+jwT-ObfGPxnbKvkz1MUMuJuR8NDSNaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121029160710.GA18944@Krystal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20121029160710.GA18944@Krystal>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-nfs.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:07:10PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> I'm fine with turning a direct + modulo mapping into a dispersed hash as
> long as there are no underlying assumptions about sequentiality of value
> accesses.
> 
> If the access pattern would happen to be typically sequential, then
> adding dispersion could hurt performances significantly, turning a
> frequent L1 access into a L2 access for instance.
  
> All I'm asking is: have you made sure that this hash table is not
> deliberately kept sequential (without dispersion) to accelerate specific
> access patterns ? This should at least be documented in the changelog.

It was not intentional.  I don't expect any benefit would be lost by
making it non-sequential.