>I could write a simulation to check the hash function...
I was looking at the inode pointer part of the hash function and I think
something like this should be better.
Index: include/linux/pagemap.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /var/cvs/linux/include/linux/pagemap.h,v
retrieving revision 1.1.2.14
diff -u -r1.1.2.14 pagemap.h
--- pagemap.h 1999/04/05 23:33:20 1.1.2.14
+++ linux/include/linux/pagemap.h 1999/04/06 18:08:32
@@ -32,7 +39,7 @@
*/
static inline unsigned long _page_hashfn(struct inode * inode, unsigned long offset)
{
-#define i (((unsigned long) inode)/(sizeof(struct inode) & ~ (sizeof(struct inode) - 1)))
+#define i (((unsigned long) inode-PAGE_OFFSET)/(sizeof(struct inode) & ~ (sizeof(struct inode) - 1)))
#define o (offset >> PAGE_SHIFT)
#define s(x) ((x)+((x)>>PAGE_HASH_BITS))
return s(i+o) & (PAGE_HASH_SIZE-1);
(((unsigned long) inode-PAGE_OFFSET)/(sizeof(struct inode) & ~ (sizeof(struct inode) - 1)))
I am not sure if it will make difference, but at least it looks smarter to me
because it will remove a not interesting amount of information from the
input of the hash.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/