linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #11308] tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28

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:	Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:05:08 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	dada1@...mosbay.com
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, cl@...ux-foundation.org, rjw@...k.pl,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org,
	efault@....de, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl
Subject: Re: [Bug #11308] tbench regression on each kernel release from
 2.6.22 -&gt; 2.6.28

From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:51:32 +0100

> Now, I wish sockets and pipes not going through dcache, not tbench affair
> of course but real workloads...
> 
> running 8 processes on a 8 way machine doing a 
> 
> for (;;)
> 	close(socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0));
> 
> is slow as hell, we hit so many contended cache lines ...
> 
> ticket spin locks are slower in this case (dcache_lock for example
> is taken twice when we allocate a socket(), once in d_alloc(), another one
> in d_instantiate())

As you of course know, this used to be a ton worse.  At least now
these things are unhashed. :)

--
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/