From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: willy@w.ods.org
Cc: scrosby@cs.rice.edu, alexander.riesen@synopsys.COM,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, marcelo@conectiva.com.br
Subject: Re: Algoritmic Complexity Attacks and 2.4.20 the dcache code
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 01:12:10 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030531.011210.34750891.davem@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030531080205.GA776@pcw.home.local>
From: Willy TARREAU <willy@w.ods.org>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 10:02:05 +0200
With this simple change, jhash_mix is *exactly* three times faster
for me on athlon-xp, whatever gcc I use (2.95.3 or 3.2.3), on the
following do_hash() function, and about 40% faster when used on
local variables.
Interesting :-)
This function is 189 bytes long, and takes about 72 cycles to
complete with the original macro, and is now 130 bytes long for
about 24 cycles, which means about 1.5 operation/cycle... not bad :-)
__jhash_mix takes ~23 cycles on sparc64 in the original version for
me. I get the same measurement for your version. Maybe your gcc
version just stinks :-(
Oh wait, yes, it's the memory operations it can't eliminate.
It can't do that because it has no idea whether certain pointers
alias or not. (ie. it doesn't know whether 'a' and 'b' point
to the same value)
Since all the networking versions work on local variables, in
2.4.x it shouldn't matter performance wise.
You'll note that my updated dcache jenkins patch for 2.5.x
brought the hash->words[] variables into locals before running
__jhash_mix() on it. So it shouldn't matter there either.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-31 8:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-05-29 20:42 Scott A Crosby
2003-05-30 3:57 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-30 4:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-05-30 18:16 ` Timothy Miller
2003-05-30 18:53 ` Scott A Crosby
2003-05-30 5:04 ` Scott A Crosby
2003-05-30 6:24 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-30 6:46 ` Scott A Crosby
2003-05-30 6:56 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-30 8:59 ` Alex Riesen
2003-05-30 9:00 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-30 15:05 ` Scott A Crosby
2003-05-31 6:18 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-31 8:02 ` Willy TARREAU
2003-05-31 8:12 ` David S. Miller [this message]
2003-05-31 8:56 ` Willy Tarreau
2003-05-31 8:58 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-31 8:58 ` David Schwartz
2003-05-31 9:01 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-31 6:30 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-05-31 6:33 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-31 6:41 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-05-31 6:45 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-31 18:40 ` Aaron Lehmann
2003-05-30 4:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-05-30 4:42 ` Scott A Crosby
2003-05-30 5:01 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-30 13:48 ` Nikita Danilov
2003-06-01 1:15 ` Daniel Phillips
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030531.011210.34750891.davem@redhat.com \
--to=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=alexander.riesen@synopsys.COM \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcelo@conectiva.com.br \
--cc=scrosby@cs.rice.edu \
--cc=willy@w.ods.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®