linux-kernel - Re: Make yield_task

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:	Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:42:17 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Make yield_task_fair more efficient

* Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> I have an alternate approach in mind (that I need to find time for), 
> threaded-rbtrees. Walking the tree is really efficient, specially 
> finding successor of a node.

sure, feel free to experiment with those details.

But if you want to improve Java workloads then you should probably start 
by converting them to futexes instead of sched_yield(), that will 
probably give far more performance than micro-optimizing the 
sys_sched_yield() codepath. (especially when it happens at the expense 
of other workloads, which is not acceptable for mainline) You can 
rebuild your JVM easily and re-test with its locking fixed, right?

	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/