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: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F31CDCDB2@ORSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 5 Sep 2013 19:56:39 +0000
From:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] lockref: remove cpu_relax() again

> That said, another thing that strikes me is that you have 32 CPU
> threads, and the stupid test-program I sent out had MAX_THREADS set to
> 16.  Did you change that? Becuase if not, then some of the extreme
> performance profile might be about how the threads get scheduled on
> your machine (HT threads vs full cores etc).

I'll try to get new numbers with 32 threads[*] - but even if they look good, I'd
be upset about the 16 thread case being worse with the cmpxchg/no-cpu-relax
case than the original code.

-Tony

[*] probably not till tomorrow

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ