From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] libxfs: buffer cache hashing is suboptimal
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 07:56:57 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131212205657.GA10988@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52AA078E.90800@redhat.com>
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 01:59:26PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> On 12/12/2013 02:22 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> >
> > The hashkey calculation is very simplistic,and throws away an amount
> > of entropy that should be folded into the hash. The result is
> > sub-optimal distribution across the hash tables. For example, with a
> > default 512 entry table, phase 2 results in this:
> >
> ...
> > Modify the hash to be something more workable - steal the linux
> > kernel inode hash calculation and try that:
> >
> ...
> >
> > Kinda says it all, really...
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > ---
>
> Results look nice and the algorithm seems to match the kernel variant,
> but what about the 32-bit alternate prime/cache line values? Safe to
> leave out..?
The buffer cache uses a 64 bit key, regardless of the platform.
Therefore the 64 bit variant is always needed. The kernel inode hash
uses a 32 bit key on 32 bit systems, which is why there are two
variants for it.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-12 20:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-12 7:22 [PATCH 0/5] xfs_repair: scalability inmprovements Dave Chinner
2013-12-12 7:22 ` [PATCH 1/5] repair: translation lookups limit scalability Dave Chinner
2013-12-12 18:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 18:58 ` Brian Foster
2013-12-12 7:22 ` [PATCH 2/5] repair: per AG locks contend for cachelines Dave Chinner
2013-12-12 18:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 18:58 ` Brian Foster
2013-12-12 20:46 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-12 7:22 ` [PATCH 3/5] repair: phase 6 is trivially parallelisable Dave Chinner
2013-12-12 18:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 20:53 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-12 18:59 ` Brian Foster
2013-12-12 7:22 ` [PATCH 4/5] libxfs: buffer cache hashing is suboptimal Dave Chinner
2013-12-12 18:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 18:59 ` Brian Foster
2013-12-12 20:56 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2013-12-13 14:23 ` Brian Foster
2013-12-12 7:22 ` [PATCH 5/5] repair: limit auto-striding concurrency apprpriately Dave Chinner
2013-12-12 18:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 21:00 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-12 18:59 ` Brian Foster
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=20131212205657.GA10988@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox