Hi Mathieu,
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Sasha Levin (levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> [...]
>> -static struct hlist_head *hash_bucket(struct net *net, const char *name)
>> -{
>> - unsigned int hash = jhash(name, strlen(name), (unsigned long) net);
>> - return &dev_table[hash & (VPORT_HASH_BUCKETS - 1)];
>> -}
>> -
>> /**
>> * ovs_vport_locate - find a port that has already been created
>> *
>> @@ -84,13 +76,12 @@ static struct hlist_head *hash_bucket(struct net *net, const char *name)
>> */
>> struct vport *ovs_vport_locate(struct net *net, const char *name)
>> {
>> - struct hlist_head *bucket = hash_bucket(net, name);
>> struct vport *vport;
>> struct hlist_node *node;
>> + int key = full_name_hash(name, strlen(name));
>>
>> - hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(vport, node, bucket, hash_node)
>> - if (!strcmp(name, vport->ops->get_name(vport)) &&
>> - net_eq(ovs_dp_get_net(vport->dp), net))
>> + hash_for_each_possible_rcu(dev_table, vport, node, hash_node, key)
>
> Is applying hash_32() on top of full_name_hash() needed and expected ?
Since this was pointed out in several of the patches, I'll answer it
just once here.
I've intentionally "allowed" double hashing with hash_32 to keep the
code simple.
hash_32() is pretty simple and gcc optimizes it to be almost nothing,
so doing that costs us a multiplication and a shift. On the other
hand, we benefit from keeping our code simple - how would we avoid
doing this double hash? adding a different hashtable function for
strings? or a new function for already hashed keys? I think we benefit
a lot from having to mul/shr instead of adding extra lines of code
here.
Thanks,
Sasha
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>