From: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
To: "Holger Hoffstätte" <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>
Cc: Linux BTRFS Mailinglist <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Support xxhash64 checksums
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 14:54:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190822125418.GF4052@x250> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ed9e2eaa-7637-9752-94bb-fd415ab2b798@applied-asynchrony.com>
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 02:28:53PM +0200, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> On 8/22/19 1:40 PM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> > Now that Nikolay's XXHASH64 support for the Crypto API has landed and BTRFS is
> > prepared for an easy addition of new checksums, this patchset implements
> > XXHASH64 as a second, fast but not cryptographically secure checksum hash.
>
> Question from the cheap seats.. :)
>
> I know that crc32c-intel uses native SSE 4.2 instructions, but so far I have
> been unable to find benchmarks or explanations why adding xxhash64 benefits
> btrfs. All benchmarks seem to be against crc32c in *software*, not the
> SSE4.2-enabled version (or I can't read). I mean, it's great that xxhash64 is
> really fast for a software implementation, but how does btrfs benefit from this
> compared to using crc32-intel?
>
> Verifying that plugging in other hash impls works (e.g. as preparation for
> stronger impls) has value, but it's probably not something most
> users care about.
>
> Maybe there are obscure downsides to crc32c-intel like instruction latency
> (def. a problem for AVX512), cache pollution..?
>
> Just curious.
It's not so much about the performance aspect of xxhash64 vs crc32c. xxhash64
has a lower collission proability compared to crc32c, which for instance makes
it a good candidate to use for de-duplication.
HTH,
Johannes
--
Johannes Thumshirn SUSE Labs Filesystems
jthumshirn@suse.de +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-22 12:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-22 11:40 [PATCH v2 0/4] Support xxhash64 checksums Johannes Thumshirn
2019-08-22 11:40 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] btrfs: turn checksum type define into a enum Johannes Thumshirn
2019-08-22 11:40 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] btrfs: create structure to encode checksum type and length Johannes Thumshirn
2019-08-22 12:11 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2019-08-22 13:22 ` [PATCH v2.1] " Johannes Thumshirn
2019-08-22 11:40 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] btrfs: use xxhash64 for checksumming Johannes Thumshirn
2019-08-22 11:40 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] btrfs: sysfs: export supported checksums Johannes Thumshirn
2019-08-22 12:28 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] Support xxhash64 checksums Holger Hoffstätte
2019-08-22 12:54 ` Johannes Thumshirn [this message]
2019-08-22 15:40 ` Peter Becker
2019-08-23 9:38 ` Paul Jones
2019-08-23 9:43 ` Paul Jones
2019-08-23 17:08 ` Adam Borowski
2019-08-26 12:27 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2019-08-27 0:33 ` Adam Borowski
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=20190822125418.GF4052@x250 \
--to=jthumshirn@suse.de \
--cc=holger@applied-asynchrony.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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