| 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: 4 Jun 2011 20:23:23 -0400 From: "George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com> To: andi@...stfloor.org Cc: linux@...izon.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: How to measure enable_kernel_fpu overhead? > This seems to clever for its own good. Even if you come up with some > number on one CPU it could be completely different on another. > I would suggest KISS. I don't understand. Do you mean different CPUs of the same SMP system? That would be really bad... The whole point is to, like the RAID6 code, benchmark after boot time so that the numbers reflect the individual hardware instance. Doing that in a clean maintainable way suitabkle for merging into Linus's tree is the problem. If I just needed a one-off rude hack to measure on my systems, it would be easy. But that's so obviously not useful that I didn't bother to mention it. "Too clever for its own good" would be to keep more statistics, including confidence intervals, on actual calls, and randomly dispatch requests to code paths based on the current estimated probabilities of A being faster than B. That avoids doing redundant work just for benchmarking, but does entail quite a lot of bookkeeping overhead. I'd rather just measure once at boot (or module load) and be done with it. Anyway, thanks for thinking about the problem. -- 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