| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20131029131149.GB20408@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:11:49 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sebastien.dugue@...l.net, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Run checksumming in parallel accross multiple alu's * Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote: > I'm sure it worked properly on my system here, I specificially > checked it, but I'll gladly run it again. You have to give me an > hour as I have a meeting to run to, but I'll have results shortly. So what I tried to react to was this observation of yours: > > > Heres my data for running the same test with taskset > > > restricting execution to only cpu0. I'm not quite sure whats > > > going on here, but doing so resulted in a 10x slowdown of the > > > runtime of each iteration which I can't explain. [...] A 10x slowdown would be consistent with not running your testcase but 'perf bench sched messaging' by accident, or so. But I was really just guessing wildly here. Thanks, 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