linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] lock stat for 2.6.19-rt1

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20061204122129.GA2626@outpost.ds9a.nl>
Date:	Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:21:29 +0100
From:	bert hubert <bert.hubert@...herlabs.nl>
To:	Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] lock stat for 2.6.19-rt1

On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 05:53:23PM -0800, Bill Huey wrote:

> [8264, 996648, 0]		{inode_init_once, fs/inode.c, 196}
> [8552, 996648, 0]		{inode_init_once, fs/inode.c, 193}

Impressive, Bill!

How tightly is your work bound to -rt? Iow, any chance of separating the
two? Or should we even want to?

> The first column is the number of the times that object was contented against.
> The second is the number of times this lock object was initialized. The third
> is the annotation scheme that directly attaches the lock object (spinlock,
> etc..) in line with the function initializer to avoid the binary tree lookup.

I don't entirely get the third item, can you elaborate a bit?

Do you have a feeling of the runtime overhead?

Thanks.

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com      Open source, database driven DNS Software 
http://netherlabs.nl              Open and Closed source services
-
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/