From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/5] rhashtable: use future table size to make expansion decision Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:35:57 +0000 Message-ID: <20150106093557.GC12468@casper.infradead.org> References: <1420529003-22244-1-git-send-email-ying.xue@windriver.com> <1420529003-22244-4-git-send-email-ying.xue@windriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jon.maloy@ericsson.com, Paul.Gortmaker@windriver.com, erik.hugne@ericsson.com, tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net To: Ying Xue Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:52975 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751609AbbAFJf7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2015 04:35:59 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1420529003-22244-4-git-send-email-ying.xue@windriver.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/06/15 at 03:23pm, Ying Xue wrote: > Should use future table size instead of old table size to decide > whether hash table is worth being expanded. > > Signed-off-by: Ying Xue > Cc: Thomas Graf > --- > lib/rhashtable.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Apologies as you were probably mislead by the bug as commented on in the previous patch. I don't think we need this. future_tbl only points to a different table until the old table entries are linked from the new table. The condition in the resize check where meant to exclude this phase so we would newer get to the deferred worker while relinking is happening.