linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers/base/memory: Avoid overhead from for_each_present_section

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: <a950dd20-d7eb-429b-b638-2df68208918d@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 16:25:30 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Cc: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, adityag@...ux.ibm.com, donettom@...ux.ibm.com,
 gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org, dakr@...nel.org,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shan.gavin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/base/memory: Avoid overhead from
 for_each_present_section_nr()

On 10.04.25 16:12, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 03:55:19PM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote:
>> All in all, I think we are better, and the code is slightly simpler?
> 
> One thing to notice is that maybe we could further improve and leap 'nr'
> by the number of sections_per_block, so in those scenarios where
> a memory-block spans multiple sections this could be faster?

Essentially, when we created a block we could always start with the next 
section that starts after the block.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb