linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/zsmalloc: avoid unnecessary iteration in get_pages_per

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:	Mon, 9 May 2016 14:01:02 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc:	Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@...il.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/zsmalloc: avoid unnecessary iteration in
 get_pages_per_zspage()

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 06:33:42PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (05/06/16 18:08), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> [..]
> > and it's not 45 iterations that we are getting rid of, but around 31:
> > not every class reaches it's ideal 100% ratio on the first iteration.
> > so, no, sorry, I don't think the patch really does what we want.
> 
> 
> to be clear, what I meant was:
> 
>   495 `cmp' + 15 `cmp je'                         IN
>   31 `mov cltd idiv mov sub imul cltd idiv cmp'   OUT
> 
> IN > OUT.
> 
> 
> CORRECTION here:
> 
> > * by the way, we don't even need `cltd' in those calculations. the
> > reason why gcc puts cltd is because ZS_MAX_PAGES_PER_ZSPAGE has the
> > 'wrong' data type. the patch to correct it is below (not a formal
> > patch).
> 
> no, we need cltd there. but ZS_MAX_PAGES_PER_ZSPAGE also affects
> ZS_MIN_ALLOC_SIZE, which is used in several places, like
> get_size_class_index(). that's why ZS_MAX_PAGES_PER_ZSPAGE data
> type change `improves' zs_malloc().

Why not if such simple improves zsmalloc? :)
Please send a patch.

Thanks a lot, Sergey!