linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC] hash: Let gcc decide how to multiply

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:	Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	dborkman@...hat.com
Cc:	linux@...musvillemoes.dk, ffusco@...hat.com, tgraf@...g.ch,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, matthew@....cx, wli@...omorphy.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, nyc@...omorphy.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] hash: Let gcc decide how to multiply

From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:58:37 +0200

> On 08/25/2014 02:13 PM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> A 9+ years old comment in hash_64 says that gcc can't optimize
>> multiplication by GOLDEN_RATIO_PRIME_64. Well, compilers get smarter
>> and CPUs get faster all the time, so it is perhaps about time to
>> revisit that assumption.
> 
> Seems fine by me, but Cc'ing a couple of others (as those you have
> Cc'ed
> haven't written that code :)). You might want to let your changes go
> via
> Andrew's tree, too, perhaps ...

You need to test the code generation for a cpu where the multiply
instruction is more expensive than the shifts and adds.
--
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/