linux-kernel - Re: Odd performance results

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: <20160713122748.GC20253@khazad-dum.debian.net>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jul 2016 09:27:48 -0300
From:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Odd performance results

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > The ordering Paul has, namely 0,1 for core0,smt{0,1} is not something
> > I've ever seen on an Intel part. AMD otoh does enumerate their CMT stuff
> > like what Paul has.
> 
> That's more the natural 'direct' mapping from CPU internal topology to CPU id: 
> what's close to each other physically is close to each other in the CPU id space 
> as well.

But does it correctly reflect the hardware?  That seems to be the real
question...

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh