lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [patch 2/7] lib/hashmod: Add modulo based hash mechanism
From
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I use hash_32() in net/sched/sch_fq.c, for all packets sent by Google
> servers. (Note that I did _not_ use hash_ptr())
>
> That's gazillions of packets per second, and the current multiply worked
> just fine in term of hash spreading.

So hash_32() really is much better than hash_64(). I think we'll tweak
it a bit, but largely leave it alone.

The 64-bit case needs to be tweaked a _lot_.

For the 32-bit case, I like the one that George Spelvin suggested:

#define GOLDEN_RATIO_32 0x61c88647 /* phi^2 = 1-phi */

because of his slow multiplier fallback version that we could also use:

/* Returns x * GOLDEN_RATIO_32 without a hardware multiplier */
unsigned hash_32(unsigned x)
{
unsigned y, z;
/* Path length */
y = (x << 19) + x; /* 1 shift + 1 add */
z = (x << 9) + y; /* 1 shift + 2 add */
x = (x << 23) + z; /* 1 shift + 3 add */
z = (z << 8) + y; /* 2 shift + 3 add */
x = (x << 6) - x; /* 2 shift + 4 add */
return (z << 3) + x; /* 3 shift + 4 add */
}

and I don't think that we really need the several big constants with
the fancy "full cascade" function.

If you have a test-case for that sch_fq.c case, it might be a good
idea to test the above GOLDEN_RATIO_32 value, but quite frankly, I
don't see any way it would be materially different from the one we use
now. It does avoid that long series of zeroes in the low bits, but
that's actually not a huge problem for the 32-bit hash to begin with.
It's not nearly as long a series (or in the wrong bit positions) as
the 64-bit hash multiplier value had.

Also, I suspect that since you hash the kernel "struct sock" pointers,
you actually never get the kinds of really bad patterns that Thomas
had.

But maybe you use hash_32() on a pointer because you noticed that
hash_long() or hash_ptr() (which use hash_64 on 64-bit architectures,
and would have been more natural) gave worse performance?

Maybe you thought that it was the bigger multiply that caused the
performance problems? If you did performance work, I suspect it really
could have been that hash_64() did a bad job for you.

Linus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-30 19:41    [W:0.053 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site