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: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1CCC6613@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:36:04 +0000
From:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	'Jesper Dangaard Brouer' <brouer@...hat.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
	Marek Majkowski <marek@...udflare.com>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
Subject: RE: Optimizing instruction-cache, more packets at each stage

From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> Sent: 15 January 2016 13:22
...
> I want to do some instruction-cache level optimizations.
> 
> What do I mean by that...
> 
> The kernel network stack code path (a packet travels) is obviously
> larger than the instruction-cache (icache).  Today, every packet
> travel individually through the network stack, experiencing the exact
> same icache misses (as the previous packet).
...

Is that actually true for modern server processors that have large i-cache.
While the total size of the networking code may well be larger, that
part used for transmitting data packets will be much be smaller and
could easily fit in the icache.

	David



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ