[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: semantics of rhashtable and sysvipc
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:23 AM Davidlohr Bueso <> wrote:

> tbl = bucket_table_alloc(ht, size, GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (tbl == NULL)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> + if (unlikely(tbl == NULL)) {
> + size = min(size, HASH_DEFAULT_SIZE) / 2;
> +
> + tbl = bucket_table_alloc(ht, size, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (tbl == NULL)
> + tbl = bucket_table_alloc_retry(ht, size,
> + }

This doesn't seem to be taking 'param->min_size' into account.

I'm not sure that matters, but right now, if you have nelem_hint set and a
min_size, the min_size is honored (if you have just min_size it's already
ignored because the rhashtable always starts with HASH_DEFAULT_SIZE). So I
could imagine that somebody uses it to guarantee something. The docs say
that "min_size" is the minimum size for *shrinking* not for initializing,
so I guess it's debatable.

Also, wouldn't it make sense to make this all be a while loop? Or are you
just depending on the knowledge that HASH_DEFAULT_SIZE / 2 is already
guaranteed to be so small that there's no point? A comment to that effect
would be good, perhaps.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-24 19:54    [W:0.071 / U:3.820 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site