| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:34:25 +1000 From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 07:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:06:18PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 08:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > Michael, at some point you were experimenting a bit with that and tried > > > to get some perf numbers of the impact that would have, did that > > > solidify ? Otherwise, I'll have a look when I'm back next week. > > > > I was mainly experimenting with replacing the lwsync in lock with an isync. > > > > But I think you're talking about making it a full sync in lock. > > > > That was about +7% on p8, +25% on p7 and +88% on p6. > > Just for completeness, what were you running as benchmark? ;-) Heh sorry :) That was my lockcomparison benchmark, based on Anton's original. It just does 100,000,000 lock/unlocks for each type in userspace: https://github.com/mpe/lockcomparison/blob/master/lock_comparison.c cheers -- 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