| 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: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 20:53:19 +0400 From: "Ananiev, Leonid I" <leonid.i.ananiev@...el.com> To: "Trond Myklebust" <trond.myklebust@....uio.no> Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <Linux-Kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: Postal 56% waits for flock_lock_file_wait > The kernel would appear to be doing exactly what is expected of it. Each of 16 user threads calls to open() one of 1000 files each 20 sec. 3000 calls per minute in sum. The open() sleeps. I'm not sure that users expected just of sleeping. Leonid -----Original Message----- From: Trond Myklebust [mailto:trond.myklebust@....uio.no] Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 8:05 AM To: Ananiev, Leonid I Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: RE: Postal 56% waits for flock_lock_file_wait On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 21:26 +0400, Ananiev, Leonid I wrote: > > On which filesystem were the above results obtained if it was not > ext2? > The default ext3 fs was used. > > > All the above results are telling you is that your test involves > several > > processes contending for the same lock, and so all of them barring the > > one process that actually holds the lock are idle. > > Yes. It is flock_lock_file_wait. That is the function which causes the sleep, yes. So what is your gripe? The kernel would appear to be doing exactly what is expected of it. Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists