linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3

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:	Wed, 23 May 2007 12:20:05 -0700
From:	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>
To:	"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, clameter@....com,
	rmk@....linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3

On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:09:56PM -0700, Yu, Fenghua wrote:
> 
> >Has there been any measurable benefit yet due to tail padding?
> 
> We don't have data that tail padding actually helps. It all
> depends on what data the linker lays out in the cachelines.
> 
> As of now we just want to create the infrastructure (so that
> more and more people who need it, can use it).

So what we have now is space wastage on some architectures, space savings on
some, but with no measurable performance benefit due to the infrastructure
itself.  Why not push the infrastructure when we really need it, as against
pushing it now when we are not sure if it benefits?

Thanks,
Kiran 
-
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/