Re: [PATCH] net: fold network name hash (v2)

From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Wed Oct 28 2009 - 02:07:30 EST


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 linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/