On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:07:10PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > I'm fine with turning a direct + modulo mapping into a dispersed hash as > long as there are no underlying assumptions about sequentiality of value > accesses. > > If the access pattern would happen to be typically sequential, then > adding dispersion could hurt performances significantly, turning a > frequent L1 access into a L2 access for instance. > All I'm asking is: have you made sure that this hash table is not > deliberately kept sequential (without dispersion) to accelerate specific > access patterns ? This should at least be documented in the changelog. It was not intentional. I don't expect any benefit would be lost by making it non-sequential. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
