linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] of: use hash based search in of_find_node_by

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:   Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:48:35 +0530
From:   Chintan Pandya <cpandya@...eaurora.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] of: use hash based search in of_find_node_by_phandle


>> Scenarios:
>> [1] Cache size 1024 + early cache build up [Small change in your cache
>> patch,
>>      see the patch below]
>> [2] Hash 64 approach[my original v2 patch]
>> [3] Cache size 64
>> [4] Cache size 128
>> [5] Cache size 256
>> [6] Base build
>>
>> Result (boot to shell in sec):
>> [1] 14.292498 14.370994 14.313537 --> 850ms avg gain
>> [2] 14.340981 14.395900 14.398149 --> 800ms avg gain
>> [3] 14.546429 14.488783 14.468694 --> 680ms avg gain
>> [4] 14.506007 14.497487 14.523062 --> 670ms avg gain
>> [5] 14.671100 14.643344 14.731853 --> 500ms avg gain
> It's strange that bigger sizes are slower. Based on this data, I'd pick [3].
>
> How many phandles do you have? I thought it was hundreds, so 1024
> entries would be more than enough and you should see some curve to a
> max gain as cache size approaches # of phandles.
>
1063 phandles for my device. In one of the previous mails, I estimated it to
be few hundreds but I wastoo short of actual number. However, 1063 still
doesn't justify why [4] and [5] are notbetter than [3].

I would still be interested to find out a way to dynamically allocate array
with size near to total # of phandles with pre-stored mapping. And free this
array once done with it. But at present, no idea how will I achieve this. If
you can share any pointers around this, that would help !

Thanks,
Chintan Pandya

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project