[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v7 15/16] openvswitch: use new hashtable implementation



* Sasha Levin (levinsasha928 gmail com) wrote:
> Hi Mathieu,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu desnoyers efficios com> wrote:
> > * Sasha Levin (levinsasha928 gmail com) 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.

This could be done, as I pointed out in another email within this
thread, by changing the "key" argument from add/for_each_possible to an
expected "hash" value, and let the caller invoke hash_32() if they want.
I doubt this would add a significant amount of complexity for users of
this API, but would allow much more flexibility to choose hash
functions.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]