linux-kernel - Postal 56% waits for flock_lock_file

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:25:53 +0400
From:	"Ananiev, Leonid I" <leonid.i.ananiev@...el.com>
To:	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <Linux-Kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Postal 56% waits for flock_lock_file_wait

A benchmark
             'postal -p 16 localhost list_of_1000_users'
56% of run time waits for flock_lock_file_wait;
Vmstat reports that 66% cpu is idle and  vmstat bi+bo=3600 (far from
max).
Postfix server with FD_SETSIZE=2048 was used.
Similar results got for sendmail. 
Wchan is counted by
            while :; do
                        ps -o user,wchan=WIDE-WCHAN-COLUMN,comm;
sleep 1;
           done | awk '/ postfix /{a[$2]++}END{for (i in a) print
a[i]"\t"i}'
If ext2 fs is used the Postal throughput is twice more and bi+bo by 50%
less while  flock_lock_file_wait 60% still.

Is flock_lock_file_wait considered as a performance limiting waiting for
similar applications in smp?

Leonid
-
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/