[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1604290119320.3718@nanos>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 01:26:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/7] lib/hashmod: Add modulo based hash mechanism
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I'd really hate to add *another* ad-hoc hash when the previous ad-hoc
> hash has been shown to be bad.
I completely agree.
I'm not a hashing wizard and I completely failed to understand why
hash_long/ptr are so horrible for the various test cases I ran.
So my ad hoc test was to use the only hash function I truly understand. It was
state of the art in my university days :) And surprise, surprise it worked
really well.
My main focus was really to solve this futex issue which plages various people
and not to dive into hashing theory for a few weeks.
I'll try to dig up some time to analyze the hash_long failure unless someone
familiar with the problem is beating me to it.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists