* Lai Jiangshan ([email protected]) wrote: > Thanks to the wrappers of bucket table alloc/free.
Sorry, I don't understand this change, and I don't see how the patch below matches the patch title. This patch does not touch ht->t.size at all, and seems to use MIN_TABLE_SIZE to replace ht->min_table_size, but does not explain why this is possible. More below, > > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]> > --- > rculfhash.c | 19 ++++++++++--------- > tests/test_urcu_hash.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/rculfhash.c b/rculfhash.c > index c7f993f..a72e1a5 100644 > --- a/rculfhash.c > +++ b/rculfhash.c > @@ -186,7 +186,8 @@ > /* > * Define the minimum table size. > */ > -#define MIN_TABLE_SIZE 1 > +#define MIN_TABLE_ORDER 0 > +#define MIN_TABLE_SIZE (1UL << MIN_TABLE_ORDER) > > #if (CAA_BITS_PER_LONG == 32) > #define MAX_TABLE_ORDER 32 > @@ -1141,7 +1142,7 @@ void init_table_populate_partition(struct cds_lfht *ht, > unsigned long i, > { > unsigned long j, size = 1UL << (i - 1); > > - assert(i > ht->min_alloc_order); > + assert(i > MIN_TABLE_ORDER); Here, all this does is change the min_alloc_order > ht->cds_lfht_rcu_read_lock(); > for (j = start + size; j < size + start + len; j++) { > struct cds_lfht_node *new_node = bucket_at(ht, j); > @@ -1177,7 +1178,7 @@ void init_table(struct cds_lfht *ht, > > dbg_printf("init table: first_order %lu last_order %lu\n", > first_order, last_order); > - assert(first_order > ht->min_alloc_order); > + assert(first_order > MIN_TABLE_ORDER); > for (i = first_order; i <= last_order; i++) { > unsigned long len; > > @@ -1239,7 +1240,7 @@ void remove_table_partition(struct cds_lfht *ht, > unsigned long i, > { > unsigned long j, size = 1UL << (i - 1); > > - assert(i > ht->min_alloc_order); > + assert(i > MIN_TABLE_ORDER); > ht->cds_lfht_rcu_read_lock(); > for (j = size + start; j < size + start + len; j++) { > struct cds_lfht_node *fini_node = bucket_at(ht, j); > @@ -1276,7 +1277,7 @@ void fini_table(struct cds_lfht *ht, > > dbg_printf("fini table: first_order %lu last_order %lu\n", > first_order, last_order); > - assert(first_order > ht->min_alloc_order); > + assert(first_order > MIN_TABLE_ORDER); > for (i = last_order; i >= first_order; i--) { > unsigned long len; > > @@ -1376,7 +1377,7 @@ struct cds_lfht *_cds_lfht_new(unsigned long init_size, > if (!init_size || (init_size & (init_size - 1))) > return NULL; > min_alloc_size = max(min_alloc_size, MIN_TABLE_SIZE); > - init_size = max(init_size, min_alloc_size); > + init_size = max(init_size, MIN_TABLE_SIZE); > ht = calloc(1, sizeof(struct cds_lfht)); > assert(ht); > ht->flags = flags; > @@ -1706,7 +1707,7 @@ void _do_cds_lfht_shrink(struct cds_lfht *ht, > { > unsigned long old_order, new_order; > > - new_size = max(new_size, ht->min_alloc_size); > + new_size = max(new_size, MIN_TABLE_SIZE); > old_order = get_count_order_ulong(old_size); > new_order = get_count_order_ulong(new_size); > dbg_printf("resize from %lu (order %lu) to %lu (order %lu) buckets\n", > @@ -1754,7 +1755,7 @@ static > void resize_target_update_count(struct cds_lfht *ht, > unsigned long count) > { > - count = max(count, ht->min_alloc_size); > + count = max(count, MIN_TABLE_SIZE); > uatomic_set(&ht->t.resize_target, count); > } > > @@ -1829,7 +1830,7 @@ void cds_lfht_resize_lazy_count(struct cds_lfht *ht, > unsigned long size, > { > if (!(ht->flags & CDS_LFHT_AUTO_RESIZE)) > return; > - count = max(count, ht->min_alloc_size); > + count = max(count, MIN_TABLE_SIZE); > if (count == size) > return; /* Already the right size, no resize needed */ > if (count > size) { /* lazy grow */ > diff --git a/tests/test_urcu_hash.c b/tests/test_urcu_hash.c > index 509767c..b9e3e81 100644 > --- a/tests/test_urcu_hash.c > +++ b/tests/test_urcu_hash.c > @@ -896,7 +896,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > return -1; > } > > - if (min_hash_alloc_size && min_hash_alloc_size * (min_hash_alloc_size - > 1)) { > + if (min_hash_alloc_size && min_hash_alloc_size & (min_hash_alloc_size - > 1)) { This seems to fix a bug in the test program, but it's not documented. Maybe this should go in as a separate patch ? Thanks, Mathieu > printf("Error: Min hash alloc size %lu is not a power of 2.\n", > min_hash_alloc_size); > return -1; > -- > 1.7.4.4 > -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ ltt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
