From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Oct  3 14:57:05 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4AEC16A41F
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Mon,  3 Oct 2005 14:57:05 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz)
Received: from eva.fit.vutbr.cz (eva.fit.vutbr.cz [147.229.10.14])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D11443D45
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Mon,  3 Oct 2005 14:57:04 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz)
Received: from eva.fit.vutbr.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eva.fit.vutbr.cz (envelope-from xdivac02@eva.fit.vutbr.cz)
	(8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j93Ev0pA050175
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO);
	Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:57:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from xdivac02@localhost)
	by eva.fit.vutbr.cz (8.13.4/8.13.3/Submit) id j93Ev05X050173;
	Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:57:00 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:57:00 +0200
From: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Message-ID: <20051003145659.GA49975@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
References: <20051001085358.GA62022@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
	<20051001154628.GA64006@xor.obsecurity.org>
	<20051002095828.GA51218@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
	<20051002192259.GA37178@xor.obsecurity.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20051002192259.GA37178@xor.obsecurity.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.49 on 147.229.10.14
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 6.0R todo list - hash sizes
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:57:05 -0000

On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 03:22:59PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 11:58:28AM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 11:46:28AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 10:53:58AM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > scottl@ removed:
> > > >     <td>Nullfs (and perhaps other filesystems) use an absurdly small
> > > >      hash size that causes significant performance penalties.</td>
> > > > 
> > > > this item from 6.0R todo list. How was this solved? I didnt see any commits
> > > > to enlarge the hash values. Its still the same... why it was removed then?
> > > 
> > > It was an incorrect suggestion on my part - it turns out this was not
> > > the cause of the performance penalties, and Jeff fixed them long ago.
> > > 
> > > Kris
> > > 
> > 
> > anyway - what sense does it make to have hash of size 4 entries? (fdescfs has
> > this for example)
> 
> It doesn't cause any performance penalty I can measure.

maybe using hash then is useless and the hash functionality could be removed to
simplify the code?