From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:33839 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758752AbcC3JOe (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 05:14:34 -0400 Message-ID: <1459329252.2055.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20160330_111501_297908_AE308355) Subject: Re: Question on rhashtable in worst-case scenario. From: Johannes Berg To: Ben Greear , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Herbert Xu , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , netdev Cc: Thomas Graf Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:14:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: <56FAAA6D.3070806@candelatech.com> (sfid-20160329_181708_555021_6CC5B70B) References: <56F9941A.3080501@candelatech.com> <56FAAA6D.3070806@candelatech.com> (sfid-20160329_181708_555021_6CC5B70B) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 09:16 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > Looks like rhashtable has too much policy in it to properly deal with > cases where there are too many hash collisions, so I am going to work > on reverting it's use in mac80211. I'm not really all that happy with that approach - can't we fix the rhashtable? It's a pretty rare corner case that many keys really are identical and no kind of hash algorithm, but it seems much better to still deal with it than to remove the rhashtable usage and go back to hand-rolling something. johannes