On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:19:39PM -0500, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2015-12-30 at 23:50 +0800, Xin Long wrote: > > > besides, this patchset will use transport hashtable to replace > > association hashtable to lookup with rhashtable api. get transport > > first then get association by t->asoc. and also it will make tcp > > style work better. > > SCTP already has a hash table, why not simply changing the way items are > hashed into it ? Because Vlad asked to split the patch so it gets easier to review. The direct change was quite big. > Sure, storing thousands of sockets in a single hash bucket is not wise. > > Switching SCTP to rhashtable at this moment is premature, it is still > moving fast. Dave and Vlad had asked in the first review for considering using rhashtable (ok, Dave didn't mention it by name). We did, and it seemed nice beside 1 issue Xin found, regarding multiple rehashing, which I'll highlight in a reply right away. Said all this, I know this was your second email already against this usage, but I have to ask, sorry: still really against it? Initial post was with subject: [PATCH net] sctp: support global vtag assochash and per endpoint s(d)port assochash table Thanks, Marcelo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
