linux-kernel - Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4

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]

Date:	Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:47:23 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jie Chen <chen@...b.org>
Cc:	Simon Holm Th??gersen <odie@...aau.dk>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4

* Jie Chen <chen@...b.org> wrote:

>> the moment you saturate the system a bit more, the numbers should 
>> improve even with such a ping-pong test.
>
> You are right. If I manually do load balance (bind unrelated processes 
> on the other cores), my test code perform as well as it did in the 
> kernel 2.6.21.

so right now the results dont seem to be too bad to me - the higher 
overhead comes from two threads running on two different cores and 
incurring the overhead of cross-core communications. In a true 
spread-out workloads that synchronize occasionally you'd get the same 
kind of overhead so in fact this behavior is more informative of the 
real overhead i guess. In 2.6.21 the two threads would stick on the same 
core and produce artificially low latency - which would only be true in 
a real spread-out workload if all tasks ran on the same core. (which is 
hardly the thing you want on openmp)

In any case, if i misinterpreted your numbers or if you just disagree, 
or if have a workload/test that shows worse performance that it 
could/should, let me know.

	Ingo
--
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/