From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@ixiacom.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next-next-2.6] netdev: better dev_name_hash
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:24:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AE4C1FA.7000002@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200910252158.53921.opurdila@ixiacom.com>
Octavian Purdila a écrit :
> The current dev_name_hash is not very good at spreading entries when a
> large number of interfaces of the same type (e.g. ethXXXXX) are used.
Very true
>
> Here are some performance numbers for creating 16000 dummy interfaces with
> and without the patch (with per device sysctl entries disabled)
>
> With patch Without patch
>
> real 0m 2.27s real 0m 4.32s
> user 0m 0.00s user 0m 0.00s
> sys 0m 1.13s sys 0m 2.16s
>
1) A program to show hash distribution would be more convincing,
and could show that 17 multiplier is better, not 31 :)
2) Why full_name_hash() not changed as well ?
$ cat test.c
#include <stdio.h>
#define init_name_hash() 0
/* partial hash update function. Assume roughly 4 bits per character */
static inline unsigned long
partial_name_hash(unsigned long c, unsigned long prevhash)
{
return (prevhash + (c << 4) + (c >> 4)) * 11;
}
/*
* Finally: cut down the number of bits to a int value (and try to avoid
* losing bits)
*/
static inline unsigned long end_name_hash(unsigned long hash)
{
return (unsigned int) hash;
}
/* 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 unsigned int
string_hash31(const unsigned char *name, unsigned int len)
{
unsigned hash = 0;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < len; ++i)
hash = 31 * hash + name[i];
return hash;
}
static inline unsigned int
string_hash17(const unsigned char *name, unsigned int len)
{
unsigned hash = 0;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < len; ++i)
hash = 17 * hash + name[i];
return hash;
}
unsigned int hashdist1[256], hashdist2[256], hashdist3[256];
void print_dist(unsigned int *dist, const char *name)
{
unsigned int i;
printf("%s[] = {\n", name);
for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) {
printf("%d, ", dist[i]);
if ((i & 15) == 15) putchar('\n');
}
printf("};\n");
}
int main()
{
int i;
unsigned int hash;
unsigned char name[16];
for (i = 0; i < 16000; i++) {
unsigned int len = sprintf(name, "dummy%d", i);
hash = full_name_hash(name, len);
hashdist1[hash & 255]++;
hash = string_hash31(name, len);
hashdist2[hash & 255]++;
hash = string_hash17(name, len);
hashdist3[hash & 255]++;
}
print_dist(hashdist1, "full_name_hash");
print_dist(hashdist2, "string_hash31");
print_dist(hashdist3, "string_hash17");
return 0;
}
$ gcc -o test test.c
$ ./test
full_name_hash[] = {
0, 0, 0, 375, 0, 0, 562, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0, 0, 56,
0, 0, 0, 374, 0, 0, 562, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 57,
0, 0, 0, 375, 0, 0, 562, 0, 0, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0, 0, 56,
0, 0, 0, 375, 0, 0, 563, 0, 0, 0, 5, 1, 0, 0, 0, 56,
0, 0, 0, 375, 0, 0, 563, 0, 0, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0, 0, 56,
0, 0, 0, 375, 0, 0, 562, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0, 0, 57,
0, 0, 0, 375, 0, 0, 563, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 56,
0, 0, 0, 376, 0, 0, 563, 0, 0, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0, 0, 56,
0, 0, 0, 375, 0, 0, 562, 0, 0, 0, 5, 1, 0, 0, 0, 57,
0, 0, 0, 374, 0, 0, 563, 0, 0, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0, 0, 56,
0, 0, 0, 375, 0, 0, 563, 0, 0, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0, 0, 56,
0, 0, 0, 376, 0, 0, 562, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0, 0, 56,
0, 0, 0, 375, 0, 0, 562, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 56,
0, 0, 0, 375, 0, 0, 562, 0, 0, 0, 5, 1, 0, 0, 0, 56,
0, 0, 0, 375, 0, 0, 563, 0, 0, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0, 0, 57,
0, 0, 0, 375, 0, 0, 563, 0, 0, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0, 0, 56,
};
string_hash31[] = {
42, 54, 67, 81, 92, 103, 116, 125, 131, 131, 133, 128, 121, 110, 101, 87,
72, 59, 47, 36, 25, 17, 12, 8, 4, 4, 6, 7, 11, 15, 24, 32,
42, 54, 68, 79, 91, 105, 117, 127, 130, 135, 133, 129, 120, 113, 100, 86,
71, 58, 46, 33, 24, 16, 11, 6, 4, 4, 5, 7, 10, 16, 23, 32,
41, 54, 66, 78, 91, 104, 117, 123, 130, 133, 134, 127, 122, 112, 101, 86,
72, 61, 47, 35, 25, 19, 12, 8, 5, 6, 6, 7, 11, 16, 24, 31,
43, 54, 66, 78, 92, 106, 116, 125, 131, 136, 132, 129, 121, 112, 98, 84,
72, 58, 44, 32, 24, 16, 11, 6, 5, 5, 4, 7, 10, 17, 23, 32,
41, 54, 65, 78, 92, 105, 116, 123, 132, 133, 133, 127, 122, 111, 99, 86,
74, 60, 45, 35, 26, 19, 12, 8, 7, 5, 5, 7, 12, 17, 24, 31,
43, 54, 66, 80, 94, 107, 116, 126, 131, 135, 131, 129, 120, 110, 97, 85,
71, 56, 44, 33, 25, 16, 11, 7, 5, 3, 4, 7, 11, 17, 22, 32,
43, 54, 66, 80, 94, 105, 115, 124, 133, 132, 132, 127, 121, 110, 99, 87,
74, 59, 46, 37, 26, 19, 12, 9, 6, 4, 5, 8, 12, 16, 23, 32,
43, 53, 67, 81, 94, 105, 116, 128, 132, 135, 133, 130, 121, 112, 100, 88,
72, 57, 46, 34, 25, 17, 11, 7, 4, 3, 5, 8, 11, 16, 22, 33,
};
string_hash17[] = {
68, 73, 72, 69, 62, 57, 52, 53, 60, 66, 71, 69, 69, 68, 67, 64,
67, 68, 70, 68, 63, 56, 53, 51, 57, 64, 68, 71, 68, 67, 66, 65,
62, 65, 67, 68, 64, 59, 55, 52, 54, 60, 67, 69, 69, 65, 65, 61,
59, 60, 63, 64, 64, 60, 55, 54, 54, 61, 67, 72, 72, 71, 66, 64,
60, 59, 60, 64, 64, 62, 58, 56, 55, 59, 66, 70, 73, 69, 67, 62,
58, 53, 56, 57, 60, 59, 57, 54, 53, 56, 62, 69, 71, 72, 67, 64,
57, 53, 51, 54, 58, 60, 59, 57, 57, 56, 63, 69, 74, 74, 71, 65,
60, 53, 50, 52, 55, 58, 59, 58, 57, 58, 61, 68, 73, 80, 77, 73,
66, 59, 52, 52, 54, 60, 61, 58, 58, 58, 59, 64, 71, 73, 78, 71,
66, 57, 50, 46, 50, 54, 59, 61, 58, 59, 60, 65, 70, 75, 78, 80,
72, 65, 56, 50, 49, 53, 59, 63, 62, 60, 62, 63, 68, 72, 77, 77,
76, 67, 58, 49, 46, 49, 55, 60, 62, 62, 59, 62, 65, 70, 72, 78,
75, 73, 62, 53, 47, 47, 52, 58, 63, 62, 63, 61, 64, 67, 71, 73,
76, 72, 68, 57, 49, 46, 50, 57, 62, 65, 65, 65, 64, 67, 69, 73,
76, 76, 71, 65, 54, 49, 49, 55, 62, 65, 65, 64, 65, 63, 66, 67,
71, 71, 70, 63, 57, 49, 47, 52, 58, 65, 66, 67, 65, 67, 65, 67,
};
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-25 21:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-25 19:58 [PATCH next-next-2.6] netdev: better dev_name_hash Octavian Purdila
2009-10-25 20:17 ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2009-10-25 21:24 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2009-10-25 21:55 ` Octavian Purdila
2009-10-25 22:41 ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2009-10-25 22:45 ` Octavian Purdila
2009-10-26 5:28 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-26 13:07 ` Krishna Kumar2
2009-10-26 14:31 ` Octavian Purdila
2009-10-26 14:55 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-26 15:52 ` Octavian Purdila
2009-10-26 16:55 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-10-26 17:45 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-10-27 1:24 ` David Miller
2009-10-27 1:40 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-26 6:30 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-10-26 7:48 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-26 4:43 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-10-26 22:36 ` [PATCH] dcache: better name hash function Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>, Al Viro
2009-10-27 2:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-27 3:53 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-10-27 16:38 ` Rick Jones
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4AE4C1FA.7000002@gmail.com \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=opurdila@ixiacom.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.