linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Performance Stats: Kernel patch

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:	Tue, 22 May 2007 13:08:24 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Maxim Uvarov <muvarov@...mvista.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Performance Stats: Kernel patch

On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:19:52 +0000
Maxim Uvarov <muvarov@...mvista.com> wrote:

> Sorry for bothering you. I know you are very busy but could 
> you please tell me what is situation of this patch?

I'd like to add the context-switch accounting to the taskstats payload.

As we'd then need to uprev the taskstats payload and version it makes sense
to have a look around, see if there's anything else which should be in
there but got missed.

I don't think we can accept the number-of-syscalls accounting feature.  It
adds a memory increment into the kernel's number-one hotpath.  Something
which people like to obsessively microbenchmark.

And as I said earlier, a 32-bit counter can be overflowed in mere seconds,
so that needs to become 64-bit, in which case we add a memory increment and
a test-n-branch to that hottest path.

There _is_ some cumulative overhead here, and I don't see how the value of
the syscall counter can justify it.
-
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/