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:	Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:15:42 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 3/3] use SLAB_ALIGN_SMP

Pekka Enberg a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
>   
>>  > Maybe we need to use three flags to separate the meanings ?
>>  >
>>  > SLAB_HINT_SMP_ALIGN
>>  > SLAB_HINT_HWCACHE_ALIGN
>>  > SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN /* strong requirement that two objects dont share a
>>  > cache line */
>>
>>  Possibly, but I'm beginning to prefer that strong requirements should
>>  request the explicit alignment (they can even use cache_line_size() after
>>  Pekka's patch to make it generic). I don't like how the name implies
>>  that you get a guarantee, however I guess in practice people are using it
>>  more as a hint (or because they vaguely hope it makes their code run
>>  faster :))
>>     
>
> At least historically SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN has been just a hint,
> although slab tries very hard to satisfy it (see the comments in
> mm/slab.c). Why do we need stronger guarantees than that, btw?
>
>   
This reminds me a previous attempt of removing SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN

http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/christoph/patch-archive/2007/2.6.21-rc6/remove_hwcache_align

At that time Christoph didnt took into account the CONFIG_SMP thing 
(false sharing avoidance), but also that L1_CACHE_SIZE is a compile 
constant, that can differs with cache_line_size()




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ