linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 00/23] ILP32 for ARM64

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:	Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:41:03 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>, arnd@...db.de,
	yury.norov@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, agraf@...e.de,
	klimov.linux@...il.com, bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com,
	apinski@...ium.com, philipp.tomsich@...obroma-systems.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/23] ILP32 for ARM64

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:19:19AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:13:57AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:

> >  - What for ILP32 on ARM64?
> > 	See https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/13/814
> > 	and http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.uclibc.buildroot/121100
> > 	Briefly,
> > 	 - for compatibility;
> > 	 - for performance;
> > 	 - for memory saving.

> Does anyone actually need this ABI? And by "need" I don't mean a
> tick-box on product fliers but actually someone going to use it on real
> systems in the field. Because I'm not keen on maintaining an ABI in the
> kernel just as a PR exercise. I have yet to see conclusive benchmarks
> that ILP32 is a real win vs LP64 but happy to be proven wrong.

Indeed.  On that subject there was some discussion at Linaro Connect
last week about work (being done outside Linaro, not sure how public it
is at this point) to pull together the current state of the art into a
Docker container image which people can use for benchmarking and as a
reference for how to pull things together.  That should help with the
analysis, it'll at least make it easier for other people to reproduce
any benchmarking results.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)