| 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: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:36:42 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> To: Jie Chen <chen@...b.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Simon Holm Th??gersen <odie@...aau.dk> Subject: Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 15:34 -0500, Jie Chen wrote: > It is clearly that the synchronization overhead increases as the number > of threads increases in the kernel 2.6.21. But the synchronization > overhead actually decreases as the number of threads increases in the > kernel 2.6.23.8 (We observed the same behavior on kernel 2.6.22 as > well). This certainly is not a correct behavior. The kernels are > configured with CONFIG_SMP, CONFIG_NUMA, CONFIG_SCHED_MC, > CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE, CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM set. The complete kernel > configuration file is in the attachment of this e-mail. > > From what we have read, there was a new scheduler (CFS) appeared from > 2.6.22. We are not sure whether the above behavior is caused by the new > scheduler. If I read this correctly, you say that: .22 is the first bad one right? The new scheduler (CFS) was introduced in .23, so it seems another change would be responsible for this. -- 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