linux-kernel - Re: AIM7 40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 6 May 2008 13:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...i.umich.edu>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AIM7 40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1



On Tue, 6 May 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 09:36:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > Hmm. Wouldn't it be nicer to make the lock be a per-inode thing? Or is 
> > there some user that doesn't have the inode info, or does anything that 
> > might cross inode boundaries?
> 
> /proc/locks and deadlock detection both cross inode boundaries (and even
> filesystem boundaries).  The BKL-removal brigade tried this back in 2.4
> and the locking ended up scaling worse than just plonking a single
> spinlock around the whole thing.

Ok, no worries. Just as long as I know why it's a single lock. Looks ok to 
me, apart from the need for testing (and talking to NFS etc people).

		Linus
--
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/