From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>, Sergey Vlasov <vsu@altlinux.ru>,
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: heads-up: git-index-pack in "next" is broken
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:52:23 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610180938540.3962@g5.osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610180845040.18388@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> Speaking in general, seen at the hash function level, of course an interface
> should not give different result for different word sizes or word endianess.
> Considering the diff algorithm as interface, as I said, the output was
> unaffected by the 64 bits word size. It was just very slow.
Well, even the output may actually be affected, in the case of _real_ hash
collisions (as opposed to just the hash _list_ collision that XDL_HASHLONG
caused).
So I actually think it would be better to have "uint32_t" as the hash
value - because that would mean that all diffs (or, in the case of the
block-algorithm, the deltas) are guaranteed to give the same results
regardless of architecture.
Right now, we actually generate a 64-bit hash value (BUT: for short lines,
it's likely only _interesting_ in the low bits, so the high bits tend to
have a very high likelihood of being zero). So hash collisions are
different: on a 32-bit architecture, two lines may have the same hash,
while on a 64-bit one, they are different.
And together with some of the limiters we have (eg XDL_MAX_EQLIMIT) hash
collisions can sometimes affect the output.
Admittedly, in _practice_ this is really unlikely to affect anything
(you'd get a valid diff in either case, they'd just possibly be subtly
different, and the input data must be _really_ strange to even see that
case), but I do think that the hash algorithm can matter.
NOTE! I'm not talking about XDL_HASHLONG(), I'm talking about the
xdl_hash_record() hash, which returns differently-sized hash results on
32-bit and 64-bit. And there are cases where we _only_ compare the hashes,
and don't actually double-check the contents.
So I think that in _practice_ you can't see differences between a 32-bit
version and a 64-bit one, but the possibility is there. Using "uint32_t"
instead of "unsigned long" to keep track of hashes would avoid that
theoretical problem (and might actually make for better performance on
64-bit archtiectures, if only because of denser data structures and thus
better cache behaviour).
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-10-18 16:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-17 4:55 heads-up: git-index-pack in "next" is broken Junio C Hamano
2006-10-17 15:39 ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-10-17 16:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-10-17 17:00 ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-10-17 18:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-10-17 18:47 ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-10-17 19:36 ` Sergey Vlasov
2006-10-17 20:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-10-17 20:25 ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-10-17 20:23 ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-10-17 20:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-10-17 21:21 ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-10-17 21:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-10-18 0:20 ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-10-18 0:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-10-18 2:08 ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-10-18 3:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-10-18 6:09 ` Davide Libenzi
2006-10-18 14:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-10-18 16:17 ` Davide Libenzi
2006-10-18 16:52 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2006-10-18 21:21 ` Davide Libenzi
2006-10-18 21:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-10-18 22:34 ` Davide Libenzi
2006-10-18 1:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-10-18 2:23 ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-10-18 4:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-10-18 5:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-10-18 10:00 ` Johannes Schindelin
2006-10-18 13:13 ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-10-18 13:02 ` Nicolas Pitre
2006-10-17 21:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-10-18 1:38 ` Nicolas Pitre
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=Pine.LNX.4.64.0610180938540.3962@g5.osdl.org \
--to=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=junkio@cox.net \
--cc=nico@cam.org \
--cc=vsu@altlinux.ru \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).