Subject: Re: [RFC v3 1/7] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

From: Sasha Levin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:49:41 +0200

On 08/07/2012 04:55 AM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 02:45:10AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> +/**
>> + * hash_add - add an object to a hashtable
>> + * @hashtable: hashtable to add to
>> + * @bits: bit count used for hashing
>> + * @node: the &struct hlist_node of the object to be added
>> + * @key: the key of the object to be added
>> + */
>> +#define hash_add(hashtable, bits, node, key)				\
>> +	hlist_add_head(node, &hashtable[hash_min(key, bits)]);
> 
> Any particular reason to make this a macro rather than a static inline?

Yes. As Eric Dumazet pointed out, hash_64() is slower than hash_32() so we should be calling hash_32() if possible (if key size is 32bits long).

This way we can call hash_min() without knowing the key size. See also the definition of hash_min() above.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to [email-masked].  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email-masked]"> [email-masked] </a>