linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] jhash: Deinline jhash, jhash2 and __jhash

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20150719.114045.240943295841151182.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 19 Jul 2015 11:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	dvlasenk@...hat.com
Cc:	tom@...bertland.com, tgraf@...g.ch, alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com,
	kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] jhash: Deinline jhash, jhash2 and __jhash_nwords

From: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 17:14:53 +0200

> On 07/16/2015 08:17 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
>> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 08:43:25 -0700
>> 
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>> This patch deinlines jhash, jhash2 and __jhash_nwords.
>>>>
>>>> It also removes rhashtable_jhash2(key, length, seed)
>>>> because it was merely calling jhash2(key, length, seed).
>>>>
>>>> With this .config: http://busybox.net/~vda/kernel_config,
>>>> after deinlining these functions have sizes and callsite counts
>>>> as follows:
>>>>
>>>> __jhash_nwords: 72 bytes, 75 calls
>>>> jhash: 297 bytes, 111 calls
>>>> jhash2: 205 bytes, 136 calls
>>>>
>>> jhash is used in several places in the critical data path. Does the
>>> decrease in text size justify performance impact of not inlining it?
>> 
>> Tom took the words right out of my mouth.
>> 
>> Denys, you keep making deinlining changes like this all the time, like
>> a robot.  But I never see you make any effort to look into the performance
>> nor code generation ramifications of your changes.
> 
> The performance impact of the call/ret pair on modern x86
> CPUs is only 5 cycles. To make a real difference in execution
> speed, the function has to be less than 100 bytes of code.

What performance metrics have you collected to assert that deinlining
doesn't matter?  What networking tests have you done which stress the
socket demux path?

You still aren't addressing any of my concerns.
--
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/