linux-kernel - Re: IO queueing and complete affinity w/ threads: Some results

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: <47BB4AB8.9020509@sgi.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:31:36 -0800
From:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
CC:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Alan.Brunelle@...com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...e.de, dgc@....com,
	arjan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: IO queueing and complete affinity w/ threads: Some results

Paul Jackson wrote:
> Jens wrote:
>> My main worry with the current code is the ->lock in the per-cpu
>> completion structure.
> 
> Drive-by-comment here:  Does the patch posted later this same day by Mike Travis:
> 
>   [PATCH 0/2] percpu: Optimize percpu accesses v3
> 
> help with this lock issue any?  (I have no real clue here -- just connecting
> up the pretty colored dots ;).
> 

I'm not sure of the context here but a big motivation for doing the
zero-based per_cpu variables was to optimize access to the local
per cpu variables to one instruction, reducing the need for locks.

-Mike
--
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/