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, 9 Feb 2008 00:58:03 +0100
From:	Nick Piggin <>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <>
Cc:	David Miller <>,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [patch] block layer: kmemcheck fixes

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 02:56:09PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> >>>Maybe cpus these days have so much store bandwith that doing
> >>>things like the above is OK, but I doubt it :-)
> >>on modern x86 cpus the memset may even be faster if the memory isn't in 
> >>cache;
> >>the "explicit" method ends up doing Write Allocate on the cache lines
> >>(so read them from memory) even though they then end up being written 
> >>entirely.
> >>With memset the CPU is told that the entire range is set to a new value, 
> >>and
> >>the WA can be avoided for the whole-cachelines in the range.
> >
> >Don't you have write combining store buffers? Or is it still speculatively
> >issuing the reads even before the whole cacheline is combined?
> x86 memory order model doesn't allow that quite; and you need a "series" of 
> at least 64 bytes
> without any other memory accesses in between even if it would....
> not happening in practice.

OK, fair enough... then it will be a very nice test to see if it
helps. I'm sure you could have an arch specific initialisation
function if it makes a significant difference.
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