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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Wed, 7 May 2008 10:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, 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>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AIM7 40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1



On Wed, 7 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Wed, 7 May 2008 10:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > Which is why I'm 100% convinced it's not even worth saving the old code. 
> > It needs to use mutexes, or spinlocks. I bet it has *nothing* to do with 
> > "slow path" other than the fact that it gets to that slow path much more 
> > these days.
> 
> Stupid question: why doesn't lock_kernel() use a mutex?

Not stupid.

The only reason some code didn't get turned over to mutexes was literally 
that they didn't want the debugging because they were doing intentionally 
bad things. 

I think the BKL is one of them (the console semaphore was another, iirc). 

			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/