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  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:	Sat, 19 May 2007 03:30:13 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <>
To:	David Howells <>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Linux Memory Management List <>,
Subject: Re: [rfc] increase struct page size?!

On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:42:30AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Nick Piggin <> wrote:
> > I'd like to be the first to propose an increase to the size of struct page
> > just for the sake of increasing it!
> Heh.  I'm surprised you haven't got more adverse reactions.
> > If we add 8 bytes to struct page on 64-bit machines, it becomes 64 bytes,
> > which is quite a nice number for cache purposes.
> Whilst that's true, if you have to deal with a run of contiguous page structs
> (eg: the page allocator, perhaps) it's actually less efficient because it
> takes more cache to do it.  But, hey, it's a compromise whatever.
> In the scheme of things, if we're mostly dealing with individual page structs
> (as I think we are), then yes, I think it's probably a good thing to do -
> especially with larger page sizes.

Yeah, we would end up eating about 12.5% more cachelines for contiguous
runs of pages... but that only kicks in after we've touched 8 of them I
think, and by that point the accesses should be very prefetchable.

I think the average of 75% more cachelines touched for random accesses
is going to outweigh the contiguous batch savings, but that's just a
guess at this point.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists