linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] increase ple

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]

Date:	Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:29:05 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
CC:	"Zhai, Edwin" <edwin.zhai@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mtosatti@...hat.com" <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] increase ple_gap default to 64

On 01/04/2011 04:18 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 01/03/2011 10:21 PM, Zhai, Edwin wrote:
>> Riel,
>> Thanks for your patch. I have changed the ple_gap to 128 on xen side,
>> but forget the patch for KVM:(
>>
>> A little bit big is no harm, but more perf data is better.
>
> So should I resend the patch with the ple_gap default
> changed to 128, or are you willing to ack the current
> patch?
>

I think 128 is safer given than 41 was too low.  We have to take into 
account newer cpus and slower spin loops.  If the spin loop does a cache 
ping-pong (which would be a bad, bad possible, implementation), even 128 
might be too low.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/