[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 07/10] tb hash: hash phys_pc, pc, and flags with

From: Emilio G. Cota
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 07/10] tb hash: hash phys_pc, pc, and flags with xxhash
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:37:51 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 20:23:42 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 06/04/2016 19:44, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> > I like this idea, because the ugliness of the sizeof checks is significant.
> > However, the quality of the resulting hash is not as good when always using 
> > func5.
> > For instance, when we'd otherwise use func3, two fifths of every input 
> > contain
> > exactly the same bits: all 0's. This inevitably leads to more collisions.

I take this back. I don't know anymore what I measured earlier today--it's
been a long day and was juggling quite a few things.

I essentially see the same chain lengths (within 0.2%) for either function, i.e.
func3 or func5 with the padded 0's when running arm-softmmu. So this
is good news :>

> Perhaps better is to always use a three-word xxhash, but pick the 64-bit
> version if any of phys_pc and pc are 64-bits.  The unrolling would be
> very effective, and the performance penalty not too important (64-bit on
> 32-bit is very slow anyway).

By "the 64-bit version" you mean what I called func5? That is:

if (sizeof(phys_pc) == sizeof(uint64_t) || sizeof(pc) == sizeof(uint64_t))
        return tb_hash_func5();
return tb_hash_func3();

or do you mean xxhash64 (which I did not include in my patchset)?
My tests with xxhash64 suggest that the quality of the results do not
improve over xxhash32, and the computation takes longer (it's more
instructions); not much, but measurable.

So we should probably just go with func5 always, as you suggested
initially. If so, I'm ready to send a v2.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]