linux-kernel - Re: [v2.6.26] what's brewing in x86.git for v2.6.26

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: <20080418083824.GA9636@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:38:24 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [v2.6.26] what's brewing in x86.git for v2.6.26

* Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm> wrote:

> My conclusion would be: the speed of the generic bitmap implementation 
> is either better than or at least comparable to the current private 
> implementations in i386/x86_64. The generic version is out-of-line, 
> while the private implementation of i386 was inlined: this causes a 
> regression for very small bitmaps. However, if the bitmap size is a 
> constant and fits a long integer, the updated generic code should 
> inline an optimized version, like x86_64 currently does it.
> 
> I think the change is a good one.

quite so. Your change was promising from the get go and the latest 
iteration was definitely a good one and is very much mergable. That it 
also helps improve other architectures is the icing on the cake.

Andi will have to prove his points by coming up with competing benchmark 
results - you certainly did your fair share to back up your change with 
numbers. (and Andi, if/when you do so, please Cc: Alexander too in the 
future. Dont you want him to be able to reply to your complaints ASAP?)

I dont really understand the negativism that comes from Andi - he was 
very much aware of the various iterations and benchmarks you did when 
developing this rather cool feature: he participated in those threads 
and was Cc:-ed as well. The "100% bogus benchmark with the most 
unrealistic input data set one can imagine" remark from Andi with no Cc: 
was a nasty and unprovoked hit below the waistline.

	Ingo
--
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/