linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.20-rc4 0/4] futexes functionalities and improvements

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]

Message-ID: <20070116175021.GA9778@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:50:21 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc:	Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@...l.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.20-rc4 0/4] futexes functionalities and improvements


* Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com> wrote:

> > what do you mean by that - which is this same resource?
> 
> From what has been said here before, all futexes are stored in the 
> same list or hash table or whatever it was.  I want to see how that 
> code behaves if many separate processes concurrently use futexes.

futexes are stored in the bucket hash, and these patches do not change 
that. The pi-list that was talked about is per-futex. So there's no 
change to the way futexes are hashed nor should there be any scalability 
impact - besides the micro-impact that was measured in a number of ways 
- AFAICS.

	Ingo
-
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/