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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 02:06:11 +0000 From: Chaitanya Kulkarni <Chaitanya.Kulkarni@....com> To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com> CC: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, "target-devel@...r.kernel.org" <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] target/file: don't zero iter before iov_iter_bvec On 1/9/21 13:29, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 09/01/2021 20:52, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: >> On 1/9/21 12:40, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> I expect you won't find any, but such little things can pile up >>> into a not-easy-to-spot overhead over time. >> That is what I suspected with the resulting assembly. The commit log >> needs to document that there is no direct impact on the performance > It's obvious that 3-4 extra mov $0 off(%reg) won't change performance > but still hasn't been formally confirmed ... This is obvious for you and me since we spent time into looking into resulting assembly not every reviewer is expected to do that see [1]. > >> which can be seen with this patch, but this is nice to have > ... so if you don't mind, I won't be resending just for that. As per commit log guidelines [1] you have to quantify the optimization. Since you cannot quantify the optimization modify the commit log explaining that there is not significant performance benefit observe. > -- Pavel Begunkov [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/submitting-patches.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists