[PATCH] diff-delta.c: Rationalize culling of hash buckets
From: David Kastrup <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:34
Subsystem:
the rest · Maintainer:
Linus Torvalds
The previous hash bucket culling resulted in a somewhat unpredictable number of hash bucket entries in the order of magnitude of HASH_LIMIT. Replace this with a Bresenham-like algorithm leaving us with exactly HASH_LIMIT entries by uniform culling. --- This is assuming that the previous patch series has been applied (lacking any final comments or Acks on it; but I think I addressed the issues). The hash bucket code culling has really annoyed me with its unintuitive results. If the preceding patch series is thrown out (I can't think why it would), one could rework this to fit the current master if really needed. diff-delta.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/diff-delta.c b/diff-delta.c
index e7c33aa..98795c6 100644
--- a/diff-delta.c
+++ b/diff-delta.c@@ -207,19 +207,40 @@ struct delta_index * create_delta_index(const void *buf, unsigned long bufsize) * the reference buffer. */ for (i = 0; i < hsize; i++) { - if (hash_count[i] < HASH_LIMIT) + int acc; + + if (hash_count[i] <= HASH_LIMIT) continue; + + entries -= hash_count[i] - HASH_LIMIT; + /* We leave exactly HASH_LIMIT entries in the bucket */ + uentry = uhash[i]; + acc = 0; do { - struct unpacked_index_entry *keep = uentry; - int skip = hash_count[i] / HASH_LIMIT; - do { - --entries; - uentry = uentry->next; - } while(--skip && uentry); - ++entries; - keep->next = uentry; - } while(uentry); + acc += hash_count[i] - HASH_LIMIT; + if (acc > 0) { + struct unpacked_index_entry *keep = uentry; + do { + uentry = uentry->next; + acc -= HASH_LIMIT; + } while (acc > 0); + keep->next = uentry->next; + } + uentry = uentry->next; + } while (uentry); + + /* Assume that this loop is gone through exactly + * HASH_LIMIT times and is entered and left with + * acc==0. So the first statement in the loop + * contributes (hash_count[i]-HASH_LIMIT)*HASH_LIMIT + * to the accumulator, and the inner loop consequently + * is run (hash_count[i]-HASH_LIMIT) times, removing + * one element from the list each time. Since acc + * balances out to 0 at the final run, the inner loop + * body can't be left with uentry==NULL. So we indeed + * encounter uentry==NULL in the outer loop only. + */ } free(hash_count);
--
1.5.3.GIT