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, 23 Aug 2008 09:34:57 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <>,
	Christoph Lameter <>,
	Pekka Enberg <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Nick Piggin <>,
	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <>,
	Suresh Siddha <>,
	Jens Axboe <>,
	Rusty Russell <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] smp_call_function: use rwlocks on queues rather than rcu

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:35:46AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Right now my impression is that it is not well understood why
> > the kmalloc makes the IPI that much slower. In theory a kmalloc
> > shouldn't be all that slow, it's essentially just a 
> > "disable interrupts; unlink object from cpu cache; enable interrupts"
> > with some window dressing. kfree() is similar.
> >
> > Does it bounce a cache line on freeing perhaps?
> I think it's just an assumption that it would be slower.  Has anyone
> measured it?

It's likely slower than no kmalloc because
there will be more instructions executed, the question is just how much.

> (Note: The measurements I posted do not cover this path, because it was
> on a two cpu system, and it was always using the call-single path.)

Ah so it was already 25% slower even without kmalloc? I thought
that was with already. That doesn't sound good. Any idea where that slowdown 
comes from?

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