linux-kernel - Re: Improve spinlock performance by moving work to one core

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOGi=dPc0mpzVKiFKFrgi3qw6RSLaMpO5ZoKEY-7HjcAMHLMhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 6 Nov 2015 12:28:56 +0800
From:	Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@...il.com>
To:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ling <ling.ml@...baba-inc.com>
Subject: Re: Improve spinlock performance by moving work to one core

Longman

Thanks for your suggestion.
We will look for real scenario to test, and could you please introduce
some benchmarks on spinlock ?

Regards
Ling

>
> Your new spinlock code completely change the API and the semantics of the
> existing spinlock calls. That requires changes to thousands of places
> throughout the whole kernel. It also increases the size of the spinlock from
> 4 bytes to 32 bytes. It is basically a no-go.
>
> However, if you can improve the performance within the existing API and
> locking semantics, it will be much more acceptable.
>
> Cheers,
> Longman
--
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/