linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0 of 9] x86/smp function calls: convert x86 tlb flushes to use function calls [POST 2]

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]

Date:	Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:04:28 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	x86@...nel.org, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 9] x86/smp function calls: convert x86 tlb flushes
 to use function calls [POST 2]

Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Don't pay attention to that number.  It's only the extra latency of a HT
>> context->HT context function call + tlb flush.  Which means 1) the tlb
>> is shared anyway, so the extra flush is redundant, 2) they're not really
>> concurrent, 3) it's going down the single-cpu call, rather than the
>> multi-cpu one, 4) it's only measuring the latency for a particular tlb
>> flush, and doesn't take into account any throughput improvements the
>> extra queueing may add.
>>     
>
> A lot of flushes are synchronous. See the rest of my email that
> you snipped.

Yep, sure, but I just wanted to be clear that the 35% number is almost
useless in isolation, and the first step is to do proper measurements.

    J
--
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/