linux-kernel - Re: [rfc][patch] store-free path walking

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 2009 09:47:19 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] store-free path walking

On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 03:12:08PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > This, btw, is exactly the kind of thing we saw with some of the
> > non-temporal work, when we used nontemporal stores to copy pages on COW
> > faults, or when doing pre-zeroing of pages. You get rid of some of the
> > hot-spots in the kernel, and you then replace them with user space taking
> > the cache misses in random spots instead. The kernel profile looks better,
> > and system time may go down, but actual performace never went down - you
> > just moved your cache miss cost from one place to another.
> 
> A few years ago when K7s were not ancient yet, after hearing
> argument for and against non-temporal stores,
> I decided to finally figure it for myself.
> 
> I tested kernel build workload on two kernels with the only
> one difference - clear_page with and without non-temporal stores.
> 
> "Non-temporal stores" kernel was faster, not slower. Just a little bit,
> but reproducibly.

It is going to be highly dependent on architecture and workload and
exactly where you use the nontemporal stores of course. I would say
with non-temporal stores in clear_page (a case where we can often
expect the memory to be used again quickly because it is anonymous
process memory), then we are quite likely to cause _more_ activity
on the memory controller and dimms which cost far more power than
cache access.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/