linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 00/11] select_idle

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: <20180619220639.GA14960@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jun 2018 23:06:39 +0100
From:   Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com, steven.sistare@...cle.com,
        dhaval.giani@...cle.com, rohit.k.jain@...cle.com,
        umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, riel@...riel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/11] select_idle_sibling rework

On Wed, 30 May, at 04:22:36PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> This is all still very preliminary and could all still go up in flames (it has
> only seen hackbench so far). This is mostly the same code I posted yesterday,
> but hopefully in a more readable form.
> 
> This fixes the SIS_PROP as per the outline here:
> 
>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180425153600.GA4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
> 
> and Rohit's suggestion of folding the iteration loops.
> 
> For testing I would suggest to ignore the last 3 patches, those are purely
> cleanups once the first lot is found to actually work as advertised.

This series looks pretty good from my testing. I see double-digit
improvements to hackbench results and only one case of a clear
regression (easily offset by all the wins).

Are you aware of any regressions for particular benchmarks I should
take a look at?