linux-kernel - Re: [this_cpu_xx V6 7/7] this_cpu: slub aggressive use of this

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:43:03 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx V6 7/7] this_cpu: slub aggressive use of this_cpu
 operations in the hotpaths

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, David Rientjes wrote:

> I ran 60-second netperf TCP_RR benchmarks with various thread counts over
> two machines, both four quad-core Opterons.  I ran the trials ten times
> each with both vanilla per-cpu#for-next at 9288f99 and with v6 of this
> patchset.  The transfer rates were virtually identical showing no
> improvement or regression with this patchset in this benchmark.
>
>  [ As I reported in http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123839191416472,
>    this benchmark continues to be the most significant regression slub has
>    compared to slab. ]

Hmmm... Last time I ran the in kernel benchmarks this showed a reduction
in cycle counts. Did not get to get my tests yet.

Can you also try the irqless hotpath?

--
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/