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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:50:32 -0800 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com> Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, dborkman@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, darkjames-ws@...kjames.pl Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] reciprocal_divide: correction/update of the algorithm On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:22 -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > I disagree with the statement that current CPU's have reasonably fast > dividers. A lot of embedded processors and many low-end x86 CPU's do > not in-fact have any hardware divider, and usually provide it using > microcode based emulation if they provide it at all. The AMD Jaguar > micro-architecture in particular comes to mind, it uses an iterative > division algorithm provided by the microcode that only produces 2 bits > of quotient per cycle, even in the best case (2 8-bit integers and an > integral 8-bit quotient) this still takes 4 cycles, which is twice as > slow as any other math operation on the same processor. I doubt you run any BPF filter with a divide instruction in it on these platform. Get real, do not over optimize things where it does not matter. -- 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