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: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:53:24 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> To: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com> Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, andi.kleen@...el.com, stable@...nel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't apply for write lock on tasklist_lock if parent doesn't ptrace other processes On 07/26, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 19:34 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 07/23, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > > > > > After applying my patch (although it's incorrect as there is a race with TRACEME), > > > perf shows write_lock_irq in forget_original_parent consumes less than 40% cpu time on > > > 8-socket machine. > > > > Any chance you can test the patch I sent? It should have the same effect, > > otherwise there is something interesting. > 1) with my patch, we got about 13% improvement; > 2) With your patch, we got about 11% improvement; > > Performance is very sensitive to spinlock contention on large machines. Zhang, thank you very much. But. In this case I do not trust these results or I missed something. I mean, they do not look 100% accurate. With your patch: forget_original_parent: exit_ptrace: if (list_empty(ptraced)) return; write_lock_irq(tasklist); ... do a lot more work ... With my patch: forget_original_parent: write_lock_irq(tasklist); exit_ptrace: if (list_empty(ptraced)) return; ... do a lot more work ... The only difference is that we are doing the function call + list_empty() under tasklist, just a few instructions compared to "do a lot more work" in forget_original_parent(). How this can make the 2% difference ? This looks like a noise to me, or do you think I missed something? > > Heh. We must optimize it. But it is not clear when ;) > Thanks. It's better to remove the big lock. Yes. The only problem this is very much nontrival with the current code. Oleg. -- 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