linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/9] powerpc: inline ip_fast

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: <56D3F287.6020707@c-s.fr>
Date:	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:25:59 +0100
From:	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To:	Denis Kirjanov <kda@...ux-powerpc.org>
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, scottwood@...escale.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] powerpc: inline ip_fast_csum()



Le 23/09/2015 07:43, Denis Kirjanov a écrit :
> On 9/22/15, Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> wrote:
>> In several architectures, ip_fast_csum() is inlined
>> There are functions like ip_send_check() which do nothing
>> much more than calling ip_fast_csum().
>> Inlining ip_fast_csum() allows the compiler to optimise better
> Hi Christophe,
> I did try it and see no difference on ppc64. Did you test with socklib
> with modified loopback and if so do you have any numbers?

Hi Denis,

I put a mftbl at start and end of ip_send_check() and tested on a MPC885:
* Without ip_fast_csum() inlined, approxymatly 7 TB ticks are spent in 
ip_send_check()
* With ip_fast_csum() inlined, approxymatly 5,4 TB ticks are spent in 
ip_send_check()

So it is about 23% time reduction.

Christophe