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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45ADD52C.50105@bull.net>
Date:	Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:50:04 +0100
From:	Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@...l.net>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	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

Ingo Molnar a écrit :
> * 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.

Yes, that's completely right !

-- 
Pierre
-
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/