linux-kernel - Re: [rfc][patch] store-free path walking

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]

Message-ID: <20091009174929.GD1656@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 2009 19:49:29 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] store-free path walking

> A few years ago when K7s were not ancient yet, after hearing
> argument for and against non-temporal stores,
> I decided to finally figure it for myself.
> 
> I tested kernel build workload on two kernels with the only
> one difference - clear_page with and without non-temporal stores.
> 
> "Non-temporal stores" kernel was faster, not slower. Just a little bit,
> but reproducibly.

I did the same experiments and in my case (K8) they were slower in 
real-world benchmarks for clear_page (but faster in micro benchmarks)

But I didn't propose non temporal anyways.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/