linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/11] VFS: Cache request_queue in struct block

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:	Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:14:09 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] VFS: Cache request_queue in struct block_device

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 02:03:56PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> >Is the performance gain because of this one less dereference really
> >substantial.
> Yes it is measurable on a large macro benchmark.
> 
> The gain is from doing the prefetch early enough, and that needs the
> additional pointer.

So it gives you extra .3% (as mentioned in your first mail). IMHO, for
.3% we should not cache extra request queue pointer.

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/