On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 14:32 +0200, Ants Aasma wrote:
> The most obvious case here is that you
> can swap any number of bytes from 0x00 to 0xFF or back without
> affecting the hash.
That's a good point. Someone (Simon?) had brought that up before, but
you and Tom convinced me that it's a problem. As I said in my reply to
Tom, one option is to change the modulus.
> I took a look at how the fletcher-64 compiles.
Great analysis, thank you.
> I'm not really sure if parallel checksums would be worth doing or not.
> On one hand, enabling data parallelism would make it more future
> proof, on the other hand, the unvectorized variant is slower than
> Fletcher-64.
Looks like we still have several options being discussed. I think the
checksum with modulo 255 is out, but perhaps a different modulus is
still on the table. And if we can get a CRC to be fast enough, then we'd
all be happy with that option.
Another thing to consider is that, right now, the page is copied and
then checksummed. If we can calculate the checksum during the copy, that
might save us a small amount of effort. My feeling is that it would only
really help if the checksum is very cheap and works on large word sizes,
but I'm not sure.
> On another note, I think I found a bug with the current latest patch.
Ugh. Great catch, thank you!
Regards,Jeff Davis
