netdev - Re: [PATCH 7/7] slub: initial bulk free implementation

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1506161104060.5683@east.gentwo.org>
Date:	Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:04:45 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
cc:	Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] slub: initial bulk free implementation

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:

> It is very important that everybody realizes that the save+restore
> variant is very expensive, this is key:
>
> CPU: i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz
>  * local_irq_{disable,enable}:  7 cycles(tsc) - 1.821 ns
>  * local_irq_{save,restore}  : 37 cycles(tsc) - 9.443 ns
>
> Even if EVERY object need to call slowpath/__slab_free() it will be
> faster than calling the fallback.  Because I've demonstrated the call
> this_cpu_cmpxchg_double() costs 9 cycles.

But the cmpxchg also stores a value. You need to add the cost of the store
to the cycles.

--
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