Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:02:56 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] dentry and inode cache hash algorithm performance changes. |
| |
"Jose R. Santos" <jrsantos@austin.ibm.com> wrote: > > On 04/30/04 15:57:01, Jose R. Santos wrote: > > err... Wrote the patch to fast. It should read > > > > tmp = (hashval * sb) ^ (GOLDEN_RATIO_PRIME + hashval) / L1_CACHE_BYTES > > > > I screw up... I'll send a fixed patch in a while. > > Just notice I've made another error in the inode hash code. > > Fixed patch (I hope) with beautification.
Does this mean you need to redo the instrumentation and benchmarking? If so, please do that and send the numbers along? There's no particular urgency on that, but we should do it.
Also, I'd be interested in understanding what the input to the hashing functions looked like in this testing. It could be that the new hash just happens to work well with one particular test's dataset. Please convince us otherwise ;)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |