linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86/misc for 6.5

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]

Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:02:40 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/misc for 6.5

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 at 15:51, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not surprised though; running 2 parallel streams (where one stream has a fixed zero as input,
> so can run OOO any time) .. can really have a performance change like this

How much do people care?

One of the advantages of just having that single "update_csum_40b()"
function is that it's trivial to then manually unroll.

With a 4-way unrolling, I get

  02: 184.0 / 184.5 cycles (8b414316) Upcoming linux kernel version
  04: 184.0 / 184.2 cycles (8b414316) Specialized to size 40
  06: 89.4 / 102.5 cycles (512daed6) New version
  22: 184.6 / 184.4 cycles (8b414316) Odd-alignment handling removed

but doesn't most network hardware do the csum on its own anyway? How
critical is csum_partial(), really?

(The above is obviously your test thing modified for 1500 byte
packets, still. With 40-byte packets, the 4-way unrolling obvious
doesn't help, although it doesn't noticeably hurt either - it's just
one more compare and branch)

                  Linus