netdev - RE: [PATCH] x86: Run checksumming in parallel accross multiple alu's

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: <AE90C24D6B3A694183C094C60CF0A2F6026B73D3@saturn3.aculab.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:18:50 -0000
From:	"David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	"Neil Horman" <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	"Ben Hutchings" <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	"Doug Ledford" <dledford@...hat.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86: Run checksumming in parallel accross multiple alu's

> How would you suggest replacing the jumps in this case?  I agree it would be
> faster here, but I'm not sure how I would implement an increment using a single
> conditional move.

I think you need 3 instructions, move a 0, conditionally move a 1
then add. I suspect it won't be a win!

If you do 'win' it is probably very dependent on how the instructions
get scheduled onto the execution units - which will probably make
it very cpu type dependant.

	David




--
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