| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:11:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> To: Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com> cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org Subject: Re: [patch 00/10] [RFC] SLUB patches for more functionality, performance and maintenance On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Martin Bligh wrote: > Those numbers came from Mathieu Desnoyers (LTTng) if you > want more details. Okay the source for these numbers is in his paper for the OLS 2006: Volume 1 page 208-209? I do not see the exact number that you referred to there. He seems to be comparing spinlock acquire / release vs. cmpxchg. So I guess you got your material from somewhere else? Also the cmpxchg used there is the lockless variant. cmpxchg 29 cycles w/o lock prefix and 112 with lock prefix. I see you reference another paper by Desnoyers: http://tree.celinuxforum.org/CelfPubWiki/ELC2006Presentations?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=celf2006-desnoyers.pdf I do not see anything relevant there. Where did those numbers come from? The lockless cmpxchg is certainly an interesting idea. Certain for some platforms I could disable preempt and then do a lockless cmpxchg. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists