From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753237Ab2HBLXN (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:23:13 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:34225 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750737Ab2HBLXM (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:23:12 -0400 Message-ID: <501A633B.3010509@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:23:39 +0200 From: Sasha Levin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120730 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Triplett CC: Tejun Heo , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable References: <20120731182330.GD21292@google.com> <50197348.9010101@gmail.com> <20120801182112.GC15477@google.com> <50197460.8010906@gmail.com> <20120801182749.GD15477@google.com> <50197E4A.7020408@gmail.com> <20120801202432.GE15477@google.com> <5019B0B4.1090102@gmail.com> <20120801224556.GF15477@google.com> <501A4FC1.8040907@gmail.com> <20120802103244.GA23318@leaf> In-Reply-To: <20120802103244.GA23318@leaf> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/02/2012 12:32 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 12:00:33PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: >> On 08/02/2012 12:45 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 12:41:56AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: >>>> How would your DEFINE_HASHTABLE look like if we got for the simple >>>> 'struct hash_table' approach? >>> >>> I think defining a different enclosing anonymous struct which the >>> requested number of array entries and then aliasing the actual >>> hash_table to that symbol should work. It's rather horrible and I'm >>> not sure it's worth the trouble. >> >> I agree that this is probably not worth the trouble. >> >> At the moment I see two alternatives: >> >> 1. Dynamically allocate the hash buckets. >> >> 2. Use the first bucket to store size. Something like the follows: >> >> #define HASH_TABLE(name, bits) \ >> struct hlist_head name[1 << bits + 1]; >> >> #define HASH_TABLE_INIT (bits) ({name[0].next = bits}); >> >> And then have hash_{add,get} just skip the first bucket. >> >> >> While it's not a pretty hack, I don't see a nice way to avoid having to dynamically allocate buckets for all cases. > > What about using a C99 flexible array member? Kernel style prohibits > variable-length arrays, but I don't think the same rationale applies to > flexible array members. > > struct hash_table { > size_t count; > struct hlist_head buckets[]; > }; > > #define DEFINE_HASH_TABLE(name, length) struct hash_table name = { .count = length, .buckets = { [0 ... (length - 1)] = HLIST_HEAD_INIT } } The limitation of this approach is that the struct hash_table variable must be 'static', which is a bit limiting - see for example the use of hashtable in 'struct user_namespace'. > > - Josh Triplett >