[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87393phshy.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:08:09 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.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,
aarcange@...hat.com, ericvh@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
josh@...htriplett.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.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 02/16] user_ns: use new hashtable implementation
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> writes:
> On 08/15/2012 01:52 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> writes:
>>
>>> Switch user_ns to use the new hashtable implementation. This reduces the amount of
>>> generic unrelated code in user_ns.
>>
>> Two concerns here.
>> 1) When adding a new entry you recompute the hash where previously that
>> was not done. I believe that will slow down adding of new entries.
>
> I figured that the price for the extra hashing isn't significant since hash_32
> is just a multiplication and a shift.
>
> I'll modify the code to calculate the key just once.
Honestly I don't know either way, but it seemed a shame to give up a
common and trivial optimization.
>> 2) Using hash_32 for uids is an interesting choice. hash_32 discards
>> the low bits. Last I checked for uids the low bits were the bits
>> that were most likely to be different and had the most entropy.
>>
>> I'm not certain how multiplying by the GOLDEN_RATION_PRIME_32 will
>> affect things but I would be surprised if it shifted all of the
>> randomness from the low bits to the high bits.
>
> "Is hash_* good enough for our purpose?" - I was actually surprised that no one
> raised that question during the RFC and assumed it was because everybody agreed
> that it's indeed good enough.
>
> I can offer the following: I'll write a small module that will hash 1...10000
> into a hashtable which uses 7 bits (just like user_ns) and post the distribution
> we'll get.
That won't hurt. I think 1-100 then 1000-1100 may actually be more
representative. Not that I would mind seeing the larger range.
Especially since I am in the process of encouraging the use of more
uids.
> If the results of the above will be satisfactory we can avoid the discussion
> about which hash function we should really be using. If not, I guess now is a
> good time for that :)
Yes. A small emperical test sounds good.
Eric
--
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