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  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, 23 Jan 2017 14:17:23 +0800
From:   zhouxianrong <>
To:     Joonsoo Kim <>,
        Minchan Kim <>
CC:     Andrew Morton <>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] zram: extend zero pages to same element pages

i am not sure as well about reverse hurting cache.

On 2017/1/23 14:13, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:47:20PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> Hello,
>> When I look at first patch, I wanted to use increment loop but didn't
>> tell to you because that small piece of code is no harmful for readbility
>> to me so I want to keep author's code rather than pointing the trivial
>> which is just matter of preference out.
>> Rather than readiblity, I suspect it might hurt performance and talked
>> with Namhyung but we cannot find anything decremental loop is bad
>> compared to incremental. Rather than, many articles have been said
>> decrement loop is faster like zhouxianrong's mentiond although I don't
>> think it makes marginal difference.
>> Joonsoo, why do you think incremental is faster?
>> zhouxianrong, why do you think decrement loops makes cache problem?
>> I'm okay either way. Just want to know why you guys think about it.
> Hmm... I guess that cache prefetcher works better for forward access
> but I'm not sure.
> Thanks.
> .

Powered by blists - more mailing lists