Ok let's try this again:
I could use some assistance in testing this, particularly on some of
the more odd archetectures.
This diff makes a bunch of changes to the vfs name cache:
1) it gets rid of the global hash table and reverse hash table for namecahe
entries.
Dorian B|ttner dorian.buett...@gmx.de wrote on Fri 12.Jun'09 at 19:25:05 +0200
AFAIK the whole work was done to make the cache more sane. The current
version is just insane enough that Bob was crying, shouting and playing
with red wine bottles during c2k9.
Hi Bob,
tried your patch,
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:51:48AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 03:51:12PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
I could use some assistance in testing this, particularly on some of
the more odd archetectures.
This diff makes a bunch of changes to the vfs name
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:23:29PM +0200, Artur Grabowski wrote:
Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net writes:
AFAIK the whole work was done to make the cache more sane. The current
version is just insane enough that Bob was crying, shouting and playing
with red wine bottles during c2k9.
This is mostly theoretical. Most hash tables are badly sized and have
often bad hashing algorithms that tend to cause long linear list.
So fix the sizing and use a proper hash algorithm. Indeed, it's more
difficult if sizing is hard.
I'm not against trees, but I like to see proper
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 03:51:12PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
I could use some assistance in testing this, particularly on some of
the more odd archetectures.
This diff makes a bunch of changes to the vfs name cache:
1) it gets rid of the global hash table and reverse hash
