[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AE7DF8E.3020607@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:07:10 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, opurdila@...acom.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fold network name hash (v2)
Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
> The full_name_hash does not produce a value that is evenly distributed
> over the lower 8 bits. This causes name hash to be unbalanced with large
> number of names. There is a standard function to fold in upper bits
> so use that.
>
> This is independent of possible improvements to full_name_hash()
> in future.
> static inline struct hlist_head *dev_name_hash(struct net *net, const char *name)
> {
> unsigned hash = full_name_hash(name, strnlen(name, IFNAMSIZ));
> - return &net->dev_name_head[hash & ((1 << NETDEV_HASHBITS) - 1)];
> + return &net->dev_name_head[hash_long(hash, NETDEV_HASHBITS)];
> }
>
> static inline struct hlist_head *dev_index_hash(struct net *net, int ifindex)
full_name_hash() returns an "unsigned int", which is guaranteed to be 32 bits
You should therefore use hash_32(hash, NETDEV_HASHBITS),
not hash_long() that maps to hash_64() on 64 bit arches, which is
slower and certainly not any better with a 32bits input.
/* Compute the hash for a name string. */
static inline unsigned int
full_name_hash(const unsigned char *name, unsigned int len)
{
unsigned long hash = init_name_hash();
while (len--)
hash = partial_name_hash(*name++, hash);
return end_name_hash(hash);
}
static inline u32 hash_32(u32 val, unsigned int bits)
{
/* On some cpus multiply is faster, on others gcc will do shifts */
u32 hash = val * GOLDEN_RATIO_PRIME_32;
/* High bits are more random, so use them. */
return hash >> (32 - bits);
}
static inline u64 hash_64(u64 val, unsigned int bits)
{
u64 hash = val;
/* Sigh, gcc can't optimise this alone like it does for 32 bits. */
u64 n = hash;
n <<= 18;
hash -= n;
n <<= 33;
hash -= n;
n <<= 3;
hash += n;
n <<= 3;
hash -= n;
n <<= 4;
hash += n;
n <<= 2;
hash += n;
/* High bits are more random, so use them. */
return hash >> (64 - bits);
}
--
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