linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 15/16] openvswitch: use new hashtable implementation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+1xoqcr5xmOkDfqL3P84CNdotOALOhiLRkJjsPCZzijSQUF6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:35:35 -0400
From:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, aarcange@...hat.com, ericvh@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, axboe@...nel.dk, agk@...hat.com,
	dm-devel@...hat.com, neilb@...e.de, ccaulfie@...hat.com,
	teigland@...hat.com, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
	bfields@...ldses.org, fweisbec@...il.com, jesse@...ira.com,
	venkat.x.venkatsubra@...cle.com, ejt@...hat.com,
	snitzer@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	dev@...nvswitch.org, rds-devel@....oracle.com, lw@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 15/16] openvswitch: use new hashtable implementation

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> * Sasha Levin (levinsasha928@...il.com) wrote:
>> Hi Mathieu,
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
>> <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>> > * Sasha Levin (levinsasha928@...il.com) wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> -static struct hlist_head *hash_bucket(struct net *net, const char *name)
>> >> -{
>> >> -     unsigned int hash = jhash(name, strlen(name), (unsigned long) net);
>> >> -     return &dev_table[hash & (VPORT_HASH_BUCKETS - 1)];
>> >> -}
>> >> -
>> >>  /**
>> >>   *   ovs_vport_locate - find a port that has already been created
>> >>   *
>> >> @@ -84,13 +76,12 @@ static struct hlist_head *hash_bucket(struct net *net, const char *name)
>> >>   */
>> >>  struct vport *ovs_vport_locate(struct net *net, const char *name)
>> >>  {
>> >> -     struct hlist_head *bucket = hash_bucket(net, name);
>> >>       struct vport *vport;
>> >>       struct hlist_node *node;
>> >> +     int key = full_name_hash(name, strlen(name));
>> >>
>> >> -     hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(vport, node, bucket, hash_node)
>> >> -             if (!strcmp(name, vport->ops->get_name(vport)) &&
>> >> -                 net_eq(ovs_dp_get_net(vport->dp), net))
>> >> +     hash_for_each_possible_rcu(dev_table, vport, node, hash_node, key)
>> >
>> > Is applying hash_32() on top of full_name_hash() needed and expected ?
>>
>> Since this was pointed out in several of the patches, I'll answer it
>> just once here.
>>
>> I've intentionally "allowed" double hashing with hash_32 to keep the
>> code simple.
>>
>> hash_32() is pretty simple and gcc optimizes it to be almost nothing,
>> so doing that costs us a multiplication and a shift. On the other
>> hand, we benefit from keeping our code simple - how would we avoid
>> doing this double hash? adding a different hashtable function for
>> strings? or a new function for already hashed keys? I think we benefit
>> a lot from having to mul/shr instead of adding extra lines of code
>> here.
>
> This could be done, as I pointed out in another email within this
> thread, by changing the "key" argument from add/for_each_possible to an
> expected "hash" value, and let the caller invoke hash_32() if they want.
> I doubt this would add a significant amount of complexity for users of
> this API, but would allow much more flexibility to choose hash
> functions.

Most callers do need to do the hashing though, so why add an
additional step for all callers instead of doing another hash_32 for
the ones that don't really need it?

Another question is why do you need flexibility? I think that
simplicity wins over flexibility here.

Thanks,
Sasha
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/