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:	Fri, 18 Mar 2016 21:05:37 +0000
From:	"Chalamarla, Tirumalesh" <Tirumalesh.Chalamarla@...iumnetworks.com>
To:	Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@...il.com>,
	"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	"will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>
CC:	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Increase the max granular size"






On 3/16/16, 2:32 AM, "linux-arm-kernel on behalf of Ganesh Mahendran" <linux-arm-kernel-bounces@...ts.infradead.org on behalf of opensource.ganesh@...il.com> wrote:

>Reverts commit 97303480753e ("arm64: Increase the max granular size").
>
>The commit 97303480753e ("arm64: Increase the max granular size") will
>degrade system performente in some cpus.
>
>We test wifi network throughput with iperf on Qualcomm msm8996 CPU:
>----------------
>run on host:
>  # iperf -s
>run on device:
>  # iperf -c <device-ip-addr> -t 100 -i 1
>----------------
>
>Test result:
>----------------
>with commit 97303480753e ("arm64: Increase the max granular size"):
>    172MBits/sec
>
>without commit 97303480753e ("arm64: Increase the max granular size"):
>    230MBits/sec
>----------------
>
>Some module like slab/net will use the L1_CACHE_SHIFT, so if we do not
>set the parameter correctly, it may affect the system performance.
>
>So revert the commit.

Is there any explanation why is this so? May be there is an alternative to this, apart from reverting the commit.

Until now it seems L1_CACHE_SHIFT is the max of supported chips. But now we are making it 64byte, is there any reason why not 32. 

Thanks,
Tirumalesh. 
>
>Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>Signed-off-by: Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@...il.com>
>---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h |    2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h
>index 5082b30..bde4499 100644
>--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h
>+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h
>@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
> 
> #include <asm/cachetype.h>
> 
>-#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT		7
>+#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT		6
> #define L1_CACHE_BYTES		(1 << L1_CACHE_SHIFT)
> 
> /*
>-- 
>1.7.9.5
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ