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

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

Date:   Tue, 30 Jan 2018 13:34:40 +0530
From:   Chintan Pandya <cpandya@...eaurora.org>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] of: use hash based search in of_find_node_by_phandle

> (1)
>
> Can you point me to the driver code that is invoking
> the search?
There are many locations. Few of them being,
https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/la/kernel/msm-4.9/tree/drivers/of/irq.c?h=msm-4.9#n214
https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/la/kernel/msm-4.9/tree/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c?h=msm-4.9#n1107
https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/la/kernel/msm-4.9/tree/drivers/clk/msm/msm-clock-controller.c?h=msm-4.9#n492
>
> (2)
>
> And also the .dts devicetree source file that you are seeing
> large overhead with.
SDM670 DTS tree starts here.
https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/la/kernel/msm-4.9/tree/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm670.dtsi?h=msm-4.9
>
>
> (3) -- this one is less important, but if the info is easily
>         available to you
>
> Sorry about dribbling out questions instead of all at once....
>
> What is the hardware you are testing this on?
SDM670
> Processor?
Kryo-300 Silver
> Cache size?
 From DT,
L1 32KB (per CPU)
L2 128KB (per CPU)
L3 1MB (total)
> Memory size?
6GB
> Processor frequency?
Max 1.7GHz for core 0. Not sure about boot time frequency.
> Any other attribute of the system that will help me understand
> the boot performance you are seeing?
I'm not able to profile of_find_node_by_phandle specifically as timers are
not up by then. So, just observing overall boot time for comparison.

My recent results were taken on debug_defconfig which has many performance
slowing code. So, gap between base-build and w/ the test patches would be
more than the actual production build.

Thanks,
Chintan

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