linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/10] [RFC] SLUB patches for more functionality, performance and maintenance

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707091419540.18102@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...r.kernel.org,
	suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, corey.d.gough@...el.com,
	penberg@...helsinki.fi, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch 00/10] [RFC] SLUB patches for more functionality,
 performance and maintenance

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, David Miller wrote:

> As Andi seemed to imply I don't even think cmpxchg is faster than
> interrupt enable/disable on current generation AMD x86_64 chips, so
> are you targetting this optimization solely at Intel x86 Core Duo
> 32-bit chips?  That's the only one I can see which will benefit from
> this.  Are you going to probe the cpu sub-type and patch SLUB?

Not sure. The numbers I have seen in the papers indicate a potential 
speedup by a factor of 10 on x86 hardware. I have not done any 
benchmarking myself yet.

> Please reconsider this change, thanks.

This is an RFC after all so nothing is fixed yet. Certainly I will keep 
this in mind.
-
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/