linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SLUB use cmpxchg

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.4.64.0708211435100.3390@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLUB use cmpxchg_local

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> Therefore, in the test where we have separate passes for slub allocation
> and free, we hit mostly the slow path. Any particular reason for that ?

Maybe on SMP you are schedule to run on a different processor? Note that 
I ran my tests at early boot where such effects do not occur.

> Note that the alloc/free test (test 2) seems to hit the fast path as
> expected.

It is much more likely in that case that the execution thread stays on one 
processor.
-
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/