On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:07:10PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

I'm fine with turning a direct + modulo mapping into a dispersed hash as
long as there are no underlying assumptions about sequentiality of value
accesses.

If the access pattern would happen to be typically sequential, then
adding dispersion could hurt performances significantly, turning a
frequent L1 access into a L2 access for instance.

All I'm asking is: have you made sure that this hash table is not
deliberately kept sequential (without dispersion) to accelerate specific
access patterns ? This should at least be documented in the changelog.

It was not intentional.  I don't expect any benefit would be lost by
making it non-sequential.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>