From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.mhcomputing.net (master.mhcomputing.net [74.208.46.186]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEA585920 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 07:21:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.mhcomputing.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 889EC80C764; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:26:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:26:38 -0700 From: Matthew Hall To: "Saha, Avik (AWS)" Message-ID: <20140923052638.GA29592@mhcomputing.net> References: <20140923013356.GA26558@mhcomputing.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] LRU using DPDK 1.7 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:21:01 -0000 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:43:59AM +0000, Saha, Avik (AWS) wrote: > So with DPDK 1.7 there are 2 separate implementations - one is the rte_hash > which does not support LRU (at least to my understanding - I could be wrong > here) and then there is the librte_table library which has support for LRU > in a hash table. I m a little confused as to which one you are referring to > Matthew. I'm referring to the fact that rte_hash'es of all types are kind of special-purpose. So it's important to clarify what kind of data you're planning to match, using which of the hashes, and which strategy. In my case I wanted to use them for variable-length data which will likely not fit onto a cacheline such as URL's, and they don't work for this application. Matthew.