On Sat, 2016-04-30 at 15:02 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Yes. So I tested those two:
>
> u32 hash_64(u64 key)
> {
> key = ~key + (key << 18);
> key ^= key >> 31;
> key += (key << 2)) + (key << 4);
> key ^= key >> 11;
> key += key << 6;
> key ^= key >> 22;
> return (u32) key;
> }
>
> u32 hash_32(u32 key)
> {
> key = (key + 0x7ed55d16) + (key << 12);
> key = (key ^ 0xc761c23c) ^ (key >> 19);
> key = (key + 0x165667b1) + (key << 5);
> key = (key + 0xd3a2646c) ^ (key << 9);
> key = (key + 0xfd7046c5) + (key << 3);
> key = (key ^ 0xb55a4f09) ^ (key >> 16);
> return key;
> }
>
> They are really good and the results are similar to the simple modulo prime
> hash. hash64 is slightly faster as the modulo prime as it does not have the
> multiplication.
>
> I'll send a patch to replace hash_64 and hash_32.
>
> Text size:
> x86_64 i386 arm
> hash_64 88 148 128
> hash_32 88 84 112
>
> So probably slightly too large to inline.
I use hash_32() in net/sched/sch_fq.c, for all packets sent by Google
servers. (Note that I did _not_ use hash_ptr())
That's gazillions of packets per second, and the current multiply worked
just fine in term of hash spreading.
Are you really going to use something which looks much slower ?
u32 hash_32(u32 key)
{
key = (key + 0x7ed55d16) + (key << 12);
key = (key ^ 0xc761c23c) ^ (key >> 19);
key = (key + 0x165667b1) + (key << 5);
key = (key + 0xd3a2646c) ^ (key << 9);
key = (key + 0xfd7046c5) + (key << 3);
key = (key ^ 0xb55a4f09) ^ (key >> 16);
return key;
}
Probably having a simple multiple when ARCH_HAS_FAST_MULTIPLIER is
defined might be good enough, eventually by choosing a better
GOLDEN_RATIO_PRIME_32
