On 30 September 2014 09:30, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 09:28:13PM +1200, Joe Stringer wrote: > > Add the 128-bit murmurhash by Austin Appleby, r150 from: > > http://code.google.com/p/smhasher/source/browse/trunk/MurmurHash3.cpp > > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com> > > --- > > The x64 version is approximately 2x faster than x86 in the tests I ran. > > What makes these x86 and x64 versions? Aren't they just 32-bit word > and 64-bit word versions? >
Yes. Apparently I confused myself a bit with looking at different hash functions, but this is how they are referred to in the original source as well. I don't have any information on whether there is a performance difference between them on a 32-bit machine, I only tested on a 64-bit machine. > The comment on getblock32() doesn't seem to match what it actually > does; it's just an array access. > My intention was to point out that I haven't tried to address this issue at all. I could drop it or place "XXX" at the start of the comment. Not familiar with which platforms this is necessary for. > I am not sure it makes sense to export hash_bytes128_x86() and > hash_bytes128_x64(). I would expect all the normal users to just call > hash_bytes128(). I see that you're trying to test both of them on all > systems, but I guess that we'll get that test coverage anyway from > normal testing on various platforms. > Okay, I can drop the exports and just test the version that hash_bytes128() points to. > Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> > Thanks for review, will hold on for review of final patches in series. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
