linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip 0/2] kernel/smp: Small csd

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160310091716.GR6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:17:16 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, dave@...olabs.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 0/2] kernel/smp: Small csd_lock optimizations

On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 05:55:34PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Justifications are in each patch, there is slight impact (patch 2)
> on some tlb flushing intensive benchmarks (albeit using ipi batching
> nowadays).  Specifically for the pft
> benchmark, on a 12-core box:

>                  4.4         4.4
>              vanilla         smp
> User           11.91       11.85
> System        197.11      194.69
> Elapsed        44.24       40.26
> 
> While the single thread is an abnormality, overall we don't seem
> to do any harm (noise range). Could be give or take, but overall
> the patches at least make some sense afaict.

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>