* Lai Jiangshan ([email protected]) wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 10:31 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Lai Jiangshan ([email protected]) wrote:
> >> On 10/11/2011 09:23 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >>> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>>  rculfhash.c |    2 ++
> >>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/rculfhash.c b/rculfhash.c
> >>> index eca3a4e..71ef411 100644
> >>> --- a/rculfhash.c
> >>> +++ b/rculfhash.c
> >>> @@ -880,6 +880,7 @@ struct cds_lfht_node *_cds_lfht_add(struct cds_lfht 
> >>> *ht,
> >>>                           goto gc_node;
> >>>                   if ((mode == ADD_UNIQUE || mode == ADD_REPLACE)
> >>>                       && !is_dummy(next)
> >>> +                     && clear_flag(iter)->p.reverse_hash == 
> >>> node->p.reverse_hash
> >>>                       && !ht->compare_fct(node->key, node->key_len,
> >>>                                           clear_flag(iter)->key,
> >>>                                           clear_flag(iter)->key_len)) {
> >>> @@ -1329,6 +1330,7 @@ void cds_lfht_lookup(struct cds_lfht *ht, void 
> >>> *key, size_t key_len,
> >>>           next = rcu_dereference(node->p.next);
> >>>           if (likely(!is_removed(next))
> >>>               && !is_dummy(next)
> >>> +             && clear_flag(next)->p.reverse_hash == reverse_hash
> >>>               && likely(!ht->compare_fct(node->key, node->key_len, key, 
> >>> key_len))) {
> >>>                           break;
> >>>           }
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry, This patch is :
> >>
> >> commit 78c543f6fa15045a465f78e7c7ef9086e4fe8b03
> >> Author: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>
> >> Date:   Mon Oct 10 21:55:00 2011 +0800
> >>
> >>     compare hash value before call compare_fct()
> >>     
> >>     Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/rculfhash.c b/rculfhash.c
> >> index eca3a4e..3ded228 100644
> >> --- a/rculfhash.c
> >> +++ b/rculfhash.c
> >> @@ -880,6 +880,7 @@ struct cds_lfht_node *_cds_lfht_add(struct cds_lfht 
> >> *ht,
> >>                            goto gc_node;
> >>                    if ((mode == ADD_UNIQUE || mode == ADD_REPLACE)
> >>                        && !is_dummy(next)
> >> +                      && clear_flag(iter)->p.reverse_hash == 
> >> node->p.reverse_hash
> >>                        && !ht->compare_fct(node->key, node->key_len,
> >>                                            clear_flag(iter)->key,
> >>                                            clear_flag(iter)->key_len)) {
> >> @@ -1329,6 +1330,7 @@ void cds_lfht_lookup(struct cds_lfht *ht, void *key, 
> >> size_t key_len,
> >>            next = rcu_dereference(node->p.next);
> >>            if (likely(!is_removed(next))
> >>                && !is_dummy(next)
> >> +              && clear_flag(node)->p.reverse_hash == reverse_hash
> > 
> > this takes care of the next -> node concern. Can you respin this patch
> > taking care of cds_lfht_next_duplicate() too ? Thanks!
> 
> cds_lfht_next_duplicate() don't need such test.

Good point. We are already checking if node->p.reverse_hash >
reverse_hash from a node which has a known reverse hash starting point,
and return NULL as soon as the reverse hash value changes.

Merged as:


commit ae450da3b54fe3c8ea8fc92ec9a9ce2ad8f131cb
Author: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>
Date:   Mon Oct 17 10:26:58 2011 -0400

    compare hash value before call compare_fct()
    
    [ Edit by Mathieu Desnoyers:
    
      This is an optimisation that checks if the reverse hash value is
      equal before calling the comparison function. Given comparing a
      reverse hash is much faster than comparison, this accelarates the
      lookups and add. ]
    
    Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>
    Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>

diff --git a/rculfhash.c b/rculfhash.c
index 189f8c8..6e07878 100644
--- a/rculfhash.c
+++ b/rculfhash.c
@@ -892,6 +892,7 @@ struct cds_lfht_node *_cds_lfht_add(struct cds_lfht *ht,
                                goto gc_node;
                        if ((mode == ADD_UNIQUE || mode == ADD_REPLACE)
                            && !is_dummy(next)
+                           && clear_flag(iter)->p.reverse_hash == 
node->p.reverse_hash
                            && !ht->compare_fct(node->key, node->key_len,
                                                clear_flag(iter)->key,
                                                clear_flag(iter)->key_len)) {
@@ -1341,6 +1342,7 @@ void cds_lfht_lookup(struct cds_lfht *ht, void *key, 
size_t key_len,
                next = rcu_dereference(node->p.next);
                if (likely(!is_removed(next))
                    && !is_dummy(next)
+                   && clear_flag(node)->p.reverse_hash == reverse_hash
                    && likely(!ht->compare_fct(node->key, node->key_len, key, 
key_len))) {
                                break;
                }


> 
> Thanks
> Lai
> 
> > 
> > Mathieu
> > 
> >>                && likely(!ht->compare_fct(node->key, node->key_len, key, 
> >> key_len))) {
> >>                            break;
> >>            }
> > 
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

_______________________________________________
ltt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev

Reply via email to