Re: [PATCH] dentry and inode cache hash algorithm performancechanges.

[Andrew Morton]

"Jose R. Santos" <jrsantos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/