linux-kernel - Re: [X86] PCI: Use generic cacheline sizing instead of per-vendor tests.

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: <20091014143054.76874f30@jbarnes-g45>
Date:	Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:30:54 -0700
From:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
To:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [X86] PCI: Use generic cacheline sizing instead of per-vendor
 tests.

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:31:39 -0400
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> wrote:

> Instead of the PCI code needing to have code to determine the 
> cacheline size of each processor, use the data the cpu identification
> code should have already determined during early boot.
> 
> (The vendor checks are also incomplete, and don't take into account
>  modern CPUs)
> 
> I've been carrying a variant of this code in Fedora for a while,
> that prints debug information.  There are a number of cases where we
> are currently setting the PCI cacheline size to 32 bytes, when the CPU
> cacheline size is 64 bytes.  With this patch, we set them both the
> same.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
> 

Does this improve performance enough to warrant putting it into the
current cycle?  Or is queuing it for 2.6.33 sufficient?

Thanks,
-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/