linux-kernel - Re: [RT LATENCY] 249 microsecond latency caused by slub's unfreeze

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:	Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:30:32 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Clark Williams <clark@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RT LATENCY] 249 microsecond latency caused by slub's
 unfreeze_partials() code.

On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 11:59 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:

> How about using spin_try_lock() in unfreeze_partials() and
> using spin_lock_contented() in get_partial_node() to reduce latency?
> IMHO, this doesn't make code more deterministic, but can maintain
> a benefit of cpu partial page with tolerable latency.

And what do you do when you fail the try lock? Try again, or just break
out?

We can run benchmarks, but I don't like playing games in -rt. It either
is deterministic, or it isn't.

-- Steve


--
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/