Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 24 Apr 1999 21:54:57 -0400 (EDT) | | From | Chuck Lever <> | | Subject | Re: random table-driven hash benchmarked |
| |
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, Peter Steiner wrote: > Here is an improved version of the multiplicative hash. It includes > some statistics (alt-SysRq-m). The size of the hash buffer can be > adjusted by changeing HASHBITS in the range of 10-15. On my system with > 64MB RAM a hash table size of 4096 entries is big enough > (#define HASHBITS 12). It's tested on 32 bit x86 processors, but I > tried to make it working on 64 bit systems too.
> -#define _hashfn(dev,block) (((unsigned)(HASHDEV(dev)^block)) & bh_hash_mask) > +#define _hashfn(dev,block) ( \ > + ( (((unsigned) (block)* 0x9E3779B1 )>>(32-HASHBITS))^HASHDEV(dev) ) & bh_hash_mask)
in real world tests, 31 - HASHBITS works better. but for the buffer cache in specific, i have found that 11 is the best shift value. however, the best shift value can vary depending on the size of the hash table.
- Chuck Lever -- corporate: <chuckl@netscape.com> personal: <chucklever@netscape.net> or <cel@monkey.org>
The Linux Scalability project: http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/linux-scalability/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |