* Sasha Levin (levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On 08/28/2012 12:11 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > * Sasha Levin (levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >> On 08/25/2012 06:24 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > >>> * Tejun Heo (tj@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 12:59:25AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > >>>>> Thats the thing, the amount of things of things you can do with a given bucket > >>>>> is very limited. You can't add entries to any point besides the head (without > >>>>> walking the entire list). > >>>> > >>>> Kinda my point. We already have all the hlist*() interface to deal > >>>> with such cases. Having something which is evidently the trivial > >>>> hlist hashtable and advertises as such in the interface can be > >>>> helpful. I think we need that more than we need anything fancy. > >>>> > >>>> Heh, this is a debate about which one is less insignificant. I can > >>>> see your point. I'd really like to hear what others think on this. > >>>> > >>>> Guys, do we want something which is evidently trivial hlist hashtable > >>>> which can use hlist_*() API directly or do we want something better > >>>> encapsulated? > >>> > >>> My 2 cents, FWIW: I think this specific effort should target a trivially > >>> understandable API and implementation, for use-cases where one would be > >>> tempted to reimplement his own trivial hash table anyway. So here > >>> exposing hlist internals, with which kernel developers are already > >>> familiar, seems like a good approach in my opinion, because hiding stuff > >>> behind new abstraction might make the target users go away. > >>> > >>> Then, as we see the need, we can eventually merge a more elaborate hash > >>> table with poneys and whatnot, but I would expect that the trivial hash > >>> table implementation would still be useful. There are of course very > >>> compelling reasons to use a more featureful hash table: automatic > >>> resize, RT-aware updates, scalable updates, etc... but I see a purpose > >>> for a trivial implementation. Its primary strong points being: > >>> > >>> - it's trivially understandable, so anyone how want to be really sure > >>> they won't end up debugging the hash table instead of their > >>> work-in-progress code can have a full understanding of it, > >>> - it has few dependencies, which makes it easier to understand and > >>> easier to use in some contexts (e.g. early boot). > >>> > >>> So I'm in favor of not overdoing the abstraction for this trivial hash > >>> table, and honestly I would rather prefer that this trivial hash table > >>> stays trivial. A more elaborate hash table should probably come as a > >>> separate API. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Mathieu > >>> > >> > >> Alright, let's keep it simple then. > >> > >> I do want to keep the hash_for_each[rcu,safe] family though. > > > > Just a thought: if the API offered by the simple hash table focus on > > providing a mechanism to find the hash bucket to which belongs the hash > > chain containing the key looked up, and then expects the user to use the > > hlist API to iterate on the chain (with or without the hlist _rcu > > variant), then it might seem consistent that a helper providing > > iteration over the entire table would actually just provide iteration on > > all buckets, and let the user call the hlist for each iterator for each > > node within the bucket, e.g.: > > > > struct hlist_head *head; > > struct hlist_node *pos; > > > > hash_for_each_bucket(ht, head) { > > hlist_for_each(pos, head) { > > ... > > } > > } > > > > That way you only have to provide one single macro > > (hash_for_each_bucket), and rely on the already existing: > > > > - hlist_for_each_entry > > - hlist_for_each_safe > > - hlist_for_each_entry_rcu > > - hlist_for_each_safe_rcu > > ..... > > > > and various flavors that can appear in the future without duplicating > > this API. So you won't even have to create _rcu, _safe, nor _safe_rcu > > versions of the hash_for_each_bucket macro. > > > > Thoughts ? > > In my opinion, the downside here is that it'll require 2 function calls and 2 > levels of nesting for a simple hash iteration. Those are macros, not functions. No function call is required. But I see your point about nesting. > > hash_for_each_bucket() will always be followed by an iteration of that > bucket, so splitting a hash_for_each() which does both into 2 > different functions which will almost always must be called in that > given order sounds unintuitive to me. > > It's also just 3 different possible iterators: > > - hlist_for_each_entry > - hlist_for_each_entry_safe > - hlist_for_each_entry_rcu > > So I think that it's a good price to pay - 2 extra macro definitions > in the header to save a macro call + nesting level in each place that > uses a hashtable. I must admin I don't care that much one way or another. Thanks, Mathieu > > > Thanks, > Sasha > > > Thanks, > > > > Mathieu > > > -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel