Andi Kleen wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 04:00:19 +1000
Anton Blanchard [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Anyway as a short term fix Jamal suggested making a sysctl for this
maximum. If fixing this all properly is out of the question for 2.6,
would the sysctl approach be satisfactory? The other option is to just
bump the limit and recognise that the user is on his own if performance
sucks.
You could just add a bitmap with a reasonable upper limit (1024?) and use find_first_zero_bit() I doubt doing that would be very intrusive.
-Andi
Since you can rename devices, that might not work. A long time ago I
hashed the devices, both by name and by index...that gives good lookup performance, at least. As for
create-time issues, that is definately slow path, and even searching linearly
4 or 8k devices is not a big deal (in my opinion). So, why not make the hard-coded
100 limit be more like 8196 or something really large? (It could still be adjustable
if needed.)
Ben
--
Ben Greear [off-list ref]
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com