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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 22 May 2011 10:49:11 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: More prefetch fall-out

So it turns out that the architectures that don't define their
prefetch() macros in <asm/processor.h> (and instead depend on
linux/prefetch.h to give them the default ones) are currently broken.

Fine, that's really trivial to fix. And, in fact, I'm now testing on
x86 by having x86 put its prefetch infrastructure in <asm/prefetch.h>
and thus making sure that you *have* to include <linux/prefetch.h> to
get it (rather than get it accidentally just because everything ends
up including <asm/processor.h>).

However, one of the breakages is <linux/skbuff.h> that does its own
list-walking functions ("skb_queue_walk*"), and they do prefetching.
So now I have the option to either just add <linux/prefetch.h> to that
file, or remove the prefetches. And you're the one that said that the
prefetches in the networking code were annoying.

So should the skb queues use prefetching? I have a hard time judging.
Are those lists usually long? Is the loop usually large enough that
there is any point to prefetching the next entry?

                         Linus
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists