| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090813115623.GB12579@kernel.dk> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:56:23 +0200 From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com Subject: Re: inlined spinlocks on sparc64 On Thu, Aug 13 2009, David Miller wrote: > From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> > Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:20:58 +0200 > > > I deleted the original thread, so I can't reply there. Just a heads up > > on the spinlock inlining on sparc64. I decided to give your patches a > > shot, since one of my IO benchmarks here basically degenerates into a > > spinlock microbenchmark with > 50% time spent there (unlock part, > > according to perf). Some of that is surely caching effects, but still. > > > > For this particular workload, I get a net improvement of about 3.5% with > > the inlined functions. Not bad. > > Doesn't surprise me, any function call can result in a register > window spill onto the stack, and that's 128 bytes of writes. > > Later when you leave the code path you have to refill that spilled > window and you get 128 bytes of reads for each one of those. Good thing it's not register starved ;-) Forgot to mention that it grew my kernel image by exactly 80KB, total size is around 5.5MB. -- Jens Axboe -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists