From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 13:56:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 13:56:41 -0400 Received: from smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]:57359 "EHLO smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 13:56:40 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD17DCE.B7DB465D@linux-m68k.org> Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 19:56:30 +0200 From: Roman Zippel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Phillips CC: Andrea Arcangeli , Ralf Baechle , Russell King , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: discontiguous memory platforms In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Daniel Phillips wrote: > Maybe this is a good place to try out a hash table variant of > config_nonlinear. It's got to be more efficient than searching all the > nodes, don't you think? Most of the time there are only a few nodes, I just don't know where and how big they are, so I don't think a hash based approach will be a lot faster. When I'm going to change this, I'd rather try the dynamic table approach. bye, Roman