| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:18:56 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> Cc: ling.ma@...el.com, hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [X86] performance improvement for memcpy_64.S by fast string. * Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote: > ling.ma@...el.com writes: > > > Intel Nehalem improves the performance of REP strings significantly > > over previous microarchitectures in several ways: > > The problem is that it's not necessarily a win on older CPUs to do it > this way. I'm wondering, why are you writing such obtruse comments to Intel submitted patches? I know it and you know it too which older CPUs have a slow string implementation, and you know the rough order of magnitude and significance as well and you have ideas how to solve it all. Instead you injected just the minimal amount of information into this thread to derail this patch you can see a problem with, but you didnt at all explain your full opinion openly and honestly and you certainly didnt give enough information to allow Ling Ma to act upon your opinion with maximum efficiency. I.e. you are not being helpful at all here and you are obstructing Intel folks actively, making their workflow and progress as inefficient as you possibly can. Why are you doing that? Ingo -- 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