linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip] x86/locking/atomic: Use asm

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: <Z8iyWHyYt6bfo_mO@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 21:21:44 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86/locking/atomic: Use asm_inline for atomic
 locking insns


* Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:

> I simply run the lmbench command, where the benchmark was obtained as 
> .rpm for Fedora 41 [1], assuming that the benchmark itself sets the 
> benchmarked system to the correct state and does enough repetitions 
> to obtain a meaningful result [2].

These assumptions are not valid in a lot of cases - see my other email 
with an example.

Thanks,

	Ingo