netdev - Re: [PATCH next-next-2.6] netdev: better dev_name

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: <20091025201714.GA20987@nuttenaction>
Date:	Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:17:14 +0100
From:	Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
To:	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next-next-2.6] netdev: better dev_name_hash

* Octavian Purdila | 2009-10-25 21:58:53 [+0200]:

>
>The current dev_name_hash is not very good at spreading entries when a
>large number of interfaces of the same type (e.g. ethXXXXX) are used.
>
>Here are some performance numbers for creating 16000 dummy interfaces with
>and without the patch (with per device sysctl entries disabled)
>
>    With patch                      Without patch
>
>    real    0m 2.27s                real    0m 4.32s
>    user    0m 0.00s                user    0m 0.00s
>    sys     0m 1.13s                sys     0m 2.16s

Can you rerun the test with jhash() as the hash function? Just for clearness -
the spreading of jhash should be more uniformly distributed. At the end: where
is the threshold where a more accurate hash function is superior.

HGN

-- 
Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>  ||  http://jauu.net/
Telephone: +49 174 5455209           ||  Key Id: 0x98350C22
Key Fingerprint: 490F 557B 6C48 6D7E 5706 2EA2 4A22 8D45 9835 0C22
--
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