On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I didn't think hash_64 was *that* slow, so it's not clear the above
> would be faster, though. And if someone is using a > 16TB file system
> on a 32-bit platform, I suspect they might be having other problems. :-)
Fair enough, hash_64() isn't *that* slow. But it _is_ 6 64-bit shifts
and adds/subtracts, which on a 32-bit machine tends to be quite
expensive. On some of them it's function calls etc.
And your point about >16TB filesystems is completely buggy. That was
*my* point. Most people - even on 64-bit - do *not* have 16TB
filesystems, and the high 32 bits are zero or contain very very little
information (ie even on a multi-terabyte filesystem, it's one or two
bits worth of information). So hash_32() is not only much more
reasonable on a 32-bit machine, the end result is basically as good
for 99.999% of all uses. Exactly *because* people don't have those big
filesystems.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
