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: <20190107161442.GZ6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 7 Jan 2019 08:14:42 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] /proc/stat: Add sysctl parameter to control irq
 counts latency

On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:07:47AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > Why are you caching the _output_ of calling sprintf(), rather than caching the
> > values of each interrupt?
> >
> It is just faster to dump the whole string buffer than redoing the
> number formatting each time when the values don't change. I can cache
> the individual sums instead if it is the preferred by most.

But it also consumes more memory.  Can you gather some measurements to
find out what the performance difference is if you cache the values
instead of the strings?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ