linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/6] Implement per-processor data areas for i386.

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]

Message-Id: <200608272007.47741.ak@suse.de>
Date:	Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:07:47 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>,
	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/6] Implement per-processor data areas for i386.

 
> your worst case scenario would be if the segment override would make it
> a "complex" instruction, so not parallel decodable. That'd mean it would
> basically cost you 6 or 7 instruction slots that can't be filled...
> while an and and such at least run nicely in parallel with other stuff.
> I don't know which if any processors actually do this, but it's rare/new
> enough that I'd not be surprised if there are some.

On AMD K7/K8 a segment register prefix is a single cycle penalty.

I couldn't find anything in the Intel optimization manuals on it, but I assume
it's also not dramatic.

-Andi
-
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/