linux-kernel - Re: Random panic in load

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:15:23 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Random panic in load_balance() with 3.16-rc

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 09:54:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> So the length is fine, and the disassembly shows that it is fixed (16
>> 32-bit words - why the heck does it use "movsl" rather than "movsq",
>> whatever).
>
> Which is exactly right btw, he's got CONFIG_NR_CPUS=512 and 8*4*16=512.

That's not my point. Why the f*ck does it use "movsl", when "movsq"
should work as well or better.

Then it should use a count of 8. Because 8*8*8 is also 512 bits.

Of course, with the enhanced string instructions, it's quite possible
that "movsb" with a count of 64 (64*8) is the best option.

Anyway, my gcc version creates a series of 8 "movq" pairs instead,
which will beat all other cases, at the cost of much bigger code
footprint.

              Linus
--
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/