[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4762F861.6050804@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:40:49 +0100
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
CC: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [NETFILTER] xt_hashlimit : speedups hash_dst()
Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 12/14/2007 09:59 PM:
> Eric Dumazet wrote, On 12/14/2007 12:09 PM:
> ...
>
>> + /*
>> + * Instead of returning hash % ht->cfg.size (implying a divide)
>> + * we return the high 32 bits of the (hash * ht->cfg.size) that will
>> + * give results between [0 and cfg.size-1] and same hash distribution,
>> + * but using a multiply, less expensive than a divide
>> + */
>> + return ((u64)hash * ht->cfg.size) >> 32;
>
> Are we sure of the same hash distribution? Probably I miss something,
> but: if this 'hash' is well distributed on 32 bits, and ht->cfg.size
> is smaller than 32 bits, e.g. 256 (8 bits), then this multiplication
> moves to the higher 32 of u64 only max. 8 bits of the most significant
> byte, and the other three bytes are never used, while division is
> always affected by all four bytes...
OOPS! So, I've missed this division here is also affected by only one
byte, but from the other side - so, almost the same... It seems this
could have been replaced with masking from the beginning...
Sorry,
Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists