lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/20] staging: lustre: convert to rhashtable
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 07:54:48AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> libcfs in lustre has a resizeable hashtable.
> Linux already has a resizeable hashtable, rhashtable, which is better
> is most metrics. See https://lwn.net/Articles/751374/ in a few days
> for an introduction to rhashtable.
>
> This series converts lustre to use rhashtable. This affects several
> different tables, and each is different is various ways.
>
> There are two outstanding issues. One is that a bug in rhashtable
> means that we cannot enable auto-shrinking in one of the tables. That
> is documented as appropriate and should be fixed soon.
>
> The other is that rhashtable has an atomic_t which counts the elements
> in a hash table. At least one table in lustre went to some trouble to
> avoid any table-wide atomics, so that could lead to a regression.
> I'm hoping that rhashtable can be enhanced with the option of a
> per-cpu counter, or similar.
>
>
> I have enabled automatic shrinking on all tables where it makes sense
> and doesn't trigger the bug. I have also removed all hints concerning
> min/max size - I cannot see how these could be useful.
>
> The dump_pgcache debugfs file provided some interesting challenges. I
> think I have cleaned it up enough so that it all makes sense. An
> extra pair of eyes examining that code in particular would be
> appreciated.
>
> This series passes all the same tests that pass before the patches are
> applied.

I've taken the first 4 patches of this series, as they were "obviously
correct". I'll let you and James argue about the rest. Feel free to
resend when there's some sort of agreement.

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-23 15:09    [W:0.918 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site