From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx03b-out01ag.rit.edu (mx03b-out01ag.rit.edu [129.21.3.135]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB74937AC for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:17:16 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=rit.edu; i=@rit.edu; q=dns/txt; s=rit1608; t=1503497837; x=1535033837; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:reply-to:from; bh=d16eX7aBR5INWbeXcvHEAyiQRaYohOPGVjsvqTWIKzM=; b=RfG9GJRbBDpdnzzWMEZVjhLpRq2VxS5krqnzV68tf9ZiKLSom7+Bx3Si 3nXwJWQ1IvmewhRcgbpXiSg094I5UOLcK91fHtCtY6CcoTTH7MxPqjwUa rFPcAbhsQEENMXzWKdOE89Md7BYmFmWrkWXEiydhVv03cwXHTO5a0hS85 g=; From: Pragash Vijayaragavan X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,417,1498536000"; d="scan'208,217";a="144560522" Received: from mail-vk0-f71.google.com ([209.85.213.71]) by smtp-server.rit.edu with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 23 Aug 2017 10:15:39 -0400 Received: by mail-vk0-f71.google.com with SMTP id q189so104372vke.9 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:15:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=d16eX7aBR5INWbeXcvHEAyiQRaYohOPGVjsvqTWIKzM=; b=jJqeiT93sso8AJx0FC7uHdKAZS0vBt9cWIY5k5to5Ppb4bbzuvXOq2dxS7tTHaHGkS 4X8ARFl5+YnREs5OxGLfCSSjZ9eOCqO0BhNnxce1LS11s13bhWK9Ge33eDCuNo88IvP/ PFht4djs68/LIn9G8i3gw9bp+MU5GJQIIRRhmmOhnC+I/BF+QTdYJfUv90Le36wVcq+u nbtx704NVbKSgvlvQaIktRyaCLFXjA7RUszxFoiC+Ye57dLg7kaKPX1WzqPHHm336TV7 62IYixCZTyTztfXetY8v+QzLKlifLvhxtCZFFyYAQaiG02Y5Oo0R8PpNrNMV1Bfuf6nJ Gv3g== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5ia7YQ2MNdInNSY2AJVe5oC8yKxYSwFT7LWMS3j5Dhbz7Hy1Pgx DBnBHQGZ/5wGQZoO1Fnjgyq/PABO56ZuJ1xyt1G6nMYlTryaD6bqRmI1/0BuyTMjPRhbejSMrgO Z3ApjenANXQ0GpDVdPQul X-Received: by 10.31.7.136 with SMTP id 130mr1668986vkh.23.1503497738096; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:15:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.31.7.136 with SMTP id 130mr1668980vkh.23.1503497737846; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:15:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.159.53.111 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:15:37 -0400 Message-ID: To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: Minseok Kwon Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: [dpdk-dev] cuckoo hash in dpdk X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: pxv3620@rit.edu List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 14:17:17 -0000 Hi, I got the chance to look at the cuckoo hash used in dpdk and have a query. would using division and modulo operations be slower than bitwise operations on RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES, specially since RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES is a power of 2. For example, to do a modulo we can do a "AND" operation on (RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES - 1), which might be faster. We did a cuckoo filter for VPP and doing this gave a slight improvement in speed. Is there any particular reason its done this way. Sorry if i am being wrong in any way, i was just curious. Thanks, Pragash Vijayaragavan Grad Student at Rochester Institute of Technology email : pxv3620@rit.edu ph : 585 764 4662