netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V2 00/16] net: fec: cleanup and fixes

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: <56CF245B.8050504@boundarydevices.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:57:15 -0700
From:	Troy Kisky <troy.kisky@...ndarydevices.com>
To:	Holger Schurig <holgerschurig@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, B38611@...escale.com,
	fabio.estevam@...escale.com, andrew@...n.ch,
	stillcompiling@...il.com, linux@....linux.org.uk, arnd@...db.de,
	sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com, laci@...ndarydevices.com,
	johannes@...solutions.net, l.stach@...gutronix.de,
	shawnguo@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	tremyfr@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 00/16] net: fec: cleanup and fixes

On 2/25/2016 1:39 AM, Holger Schurig wrote:
> Hi Troy,
> 
> what is the general aim of your patches?  Stability?  Speed?  Cleanup?
> 

1. Stability
2. performance
3. easier to read
4. more debug info

The 2nd goal is very hard to measure. It seems function alignment changes swamp
most any other improvements. I think that if the same measurement that I did were done
with a different compiler, you would see different patches increased/decreased
the BPS. But at least the overall trend on the patch set is positive. And
each individual patch has been tested. I would like someone to test on a machine
with 3 queues though.

If you have a more accurate way to measure performance, please let me know.
Also, if you know why freescale's bsp has so much better performance
that would be a very welcome patch.

Troy