From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: Extensible hashing and RCU Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:12:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20070220.021209.39159087.davem@davemloft.net> References: <200702191913.08125.dada1@cosmosbay.com> <20070220092523.GA6238@2ka.mipt.ru> <200702201104.16200.dada1@cosmosbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru, akepner@sgi.com, linux@horizon.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bcrl@kvack.org To: dada1@cosmosbay.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:46535 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932737AbXBTKMK (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:12:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200702201104.16200.dada1@cosmosbay.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Eric Dumazet Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:04:15 +0100 > Using a jenkin's hash permits a better hash distribution for a litle > cpu cost. I will post later a distribution simulation based on the > data gathered from the same real server. Actually someone (I think it was Evgeniy in fact) made such comparisons and found in his studies that not only does the current ehash xor hash function distribute about as well as jenkins, it's significantly cheaper to calculate :-) If you find jenkins is better, great, but I hope it works that way for many workloads.