linux-kernel - Re: Update cacheline size on X86

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:	Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:22:24 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Update cacheline size on X86_GENERIC

Nick Piggin wrote:

> 
>>> Anyway, GENERIC kernel should run well on all architectures, and while
>>> going too big causes slightly increased structures sometimes, going too
>>> small could result in horrible bouncing.
>> Exactly.
>>
>> That is it costs one percent or so on TPC, but I think the fix
>> for that is just to analyze where the problem is and size those
>> data structures based on the runtime cache size. Some subsystems
>> like slab do this already.
> 
> Costs 1% on TPC? Is that 128 byte aligning data structures on
> Core2, or 64 byte aligning them on P4 that costs the performance?

The first. BTW it was a rough number from memory, in that ballpark.
Also the experiment was on older kernels, might be different now.

The second would undoubtedly be much worse.

-Andi
--
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/