linux-kernel - RE: Postal 56% waits for flock_lock_file

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:05:07 -0400
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To:	"Ananiev, Leonid I" <leonid.i.ananiev@...el.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <Linux-Kernel@...r.kernel.org>
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/