From: Kyle Moffett <kyle@moffetthome.net>
To: Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu>
Cc: wli@movementarian.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update jhash.h with the new version of Jenkins' hash
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:46:49 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f73f7ab80902120546w2ac30501v10fc55b9c8270be9@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0902121006440.18739@blackhole.kfki.hu>
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Jozsef Kadlecsik
<kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu> wrote:
> The current jhash.h implements the lookup2() hash function by Bob Jenkins.
> However, lookup2() is outdated as Bob wrote a new hash function called
> lookup3(). The new hash function
>
> - mixes better than lookup2(): it passes the check that every input bit
> changes every output bit 50% of the time, while lookup2() failed it.
> - performs better: compiled with -O2 on Core2 Duo, lookup3() 20-40% faster
> than lookup2() depending on the key length.
Well, there's another question which is not addressed by Bob Jenkins'
design docs:
Kernel code usually runs cache-cold, whereas Bob Jenkins did most of
his testing cache-hot in tight loops. If you compile both lookup2 and
lookup3 with -Os and run them in a loop with a cache flush, how well
do they compare then?
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-12 13:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-11 10:19 [PATCH] Update jhash.h with the new version of Jenkins' hash Jozsef Kadlecsik
2009-02-11 20:19 ` Michał Mirosław
2009-02-11 22:50 ` Jozsef Kadlecsik
2009-02-11 23:23 ` Michał Mirosław
2009-02-12 0:12 ` wli
2009-02-12 0:29 ` David Miller
2009-02-12 0:41 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-02-12 9:05 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-02-12 9:55 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-02-12 9:11 ` Jozsef Kadlecsik
2009-02-12 9:16 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-12 9:41 ` Jozsef Kadlecsik
2009-02-12 13:46 ` Kyle Moffett [this message]
2009-02-17 17:13 ` Jozsef Kadlecsik
2009-02-18 5:11 ` Rusty Russell
2009-02-18 11:50 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2009-02-12 19:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-12 2:58 ` Rusty Russell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-02-10 19:40 Jozsef Kadlecsik
2009-02-10 21:19 ` Scott Feldman
2009-02-10 22:03 ` Jozsef Kadlecsik
2009-02-11 1:17 ` David Miller
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=f73f7ab80902120546w2ac30501v10fc55b9c8270be9@mail.gmail.com \
--to=kyle@moffetthome.net \
--cc=kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=wli@movementarian.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).