> > also I think the RING name is wrong -- it's not a ring, it's a table, > > right? I don't like having a static limit on the number of nosrq > > connections; could this be a hash table instead? > > > > I will just call this an array. Nosrq will hog memory and my thought was > that 1024 was pretty large. I envisioned using nosrq for a small number > (maybe a > few dozen), and so did not think it was necessary to make this a module > paramater > either. What do you suggest?
Maybe make it a hash table of size 32 or 64 or something like that. You use less memory in the expected case, and degrade fairly gracefully when things get bigger. If you want to get really fancy, make it a hash table that you grow when it gets too full. I agree that we don't want yet another module parameter that has to be tuned here. - R. _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
