netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] filter: optimize sk_run

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20101119.092129.112602956.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:21:29 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	shemminger@...tta.com
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, hagen@...u.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	xiaosuo@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] filter: optimize sk_run_filter

From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:15:37 -0800

> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:05:16 -0800 (PST)
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> 
>> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:55:59 +0100
>> 
>> > Unfortunatly on x86_32 it also chose that f_k was more valuable in a cpu
>> > register and accumulator A lost its register to get a stack slot
>> > instead.
>> 
>> Ok that tradeoff is terrible, but it depends upon knowledge we haven't
>> given to the compiler (yet).
>> 
>> Let me think about this a bit...
> 
> Are 'register' modifiers a no-op on current GCC?

Yes, they are.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html