linux-kernel - Re: inlined spinlocks on sparc64

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090813170818.GA5117@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:08:18 +0200
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: inlined spinlocks on sparc64

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:20:58AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 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.

That sounds good! Btw. Andrew added the patches to his -mm tree, so it
looks like the patches will be merged during the next merge window.
--
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/