linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load instruction rollback

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]

Message-ID: <20151020084856.GA15328@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:48:56 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@...il.com>
Cc:	peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ma Ling <ling.ml@...baba-inc.com>,
	Waiman.Long@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load
 instruction rollback


* Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@...il.com> wrote:

> > So it would be nice to create a new user-space spinlock testing facility, via 
> > a new 'perf bench spinlock' feature or so. That way others can test and 
> > validate your results on different hardware as well.
>
> Attached the spinlock test module . Queued spinlock will run very slowly in user 
> space because process switch context, it is OK for spinlock-test implementation 
> with kernel module ?

Not sure what you mean by 'because process switch context': if you pin the test 
tasks to individual CPUs and make sure there's nothing else running it should be 
equivalent to kernel-space execution.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/