linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2]: perf/core: addressing 4x slowdown during per-process, profiling of STREAM benchmark on Intel Xeon Phi

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: <14544d26-3198-1d9a-3585-d6a7b09845f4@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2017 20:42:39 +0300
From:   Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
        Dmitri Prokhorov <Dmitry.Prohorov@...el.com>,
        Valery Cherepennikov <valery.cherepennikov@...el.com>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2]: perf/core: addressing 4x slowdown during per-process,
 profiling of STREAM benchmark on Intel Xeon Phi

On 29.05.2017 14:45, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> On 29.05.2017 14:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 01:56:05PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>>> On 29.05.2017 13:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>>>> Why can't the tree do both?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, indeed, the tree provides such capability too. However 
>>> switching to
>>> the full tree iteration in cases where we now go through _groups 
>>> lists will
>>> enlarge the patch, what is probably is not a big deal. Do you think 
>>> it is
>>> worth implementing the switch?
>>
>> Do it as a series of patches, where patch 1 introduces the tree, patches
>> 2 through n convert the list users into tree users, and patch n+1
>> removes the list.
> 
> Well ok, let's do that additionally but please expect delay in delivery 
> (I am OOO till Jun 14).

addressed in v3.

> 
>>
>> I think its good to not have duplicate data structures if we can avoid
>> it.
>>
> 
> yeah, makes sense.
> 
> 
>