This results in smaller list heads, so that we can have more chains
in the same amount of memory (twice as many). I've multiplied the
size of the table by four though - this is because we are saving
memory by not having one lock per chain any more. So we land up
using about the same amount of memory for the hash table as we
did before I started these changes, the difference being that we
now have four times as many hash chains.

The reason that I say "about the same amount of memory" is that the
actual amount now depends upon the NR_CPUS and some of the config
variables, so that its not exact and in some cases we do use more
memory. Eventually we might want to scale the hash table size
according to the size of physical ram as measured on module load.
Signed-off-by: NSteven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>