linux-kernel - Re: [patch] epoll reduced (to 1) number of passes over the ready set ...

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702280727590.5935@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:29:03 -0800 (PST)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] epoll reduced (to 1) number of passes over the ready
 set ...

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> On Tuesday 27 February 2007 17:03, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 27 February 2007 03:32, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > > > Epoll is doing multiple passes over the ready set at the moment,
> > > > because of the constraints over the f_op->poll() call. Looking at the
> > > > code again, I noticed that we already hold the epoll semaphore in read,
> > > > and this (together with other locking conditions that hold while doing
> > > > an epoll_wait()) can lead to a smarter way to "ship" events to
> > > > userspace (in a single pass). I added more (even) more comments to the
> > > > code to explain the conditions why certain operations are safe.
> > > > This is a stress application that can be used to test the new code. It
> > > > spwans multiple thread and call epoll_wait() and epoll_ctl() from many
> > > > threads. Stress tested on my dual Opteron 254 w/out any problems.
> > >
> > > Davide,
> > >
> > > This is really cool, because the size of epitem would fit now in 128
> > > bytes instead of 192 (on x86_64 platforms). So we also reduce memory
> > > usage.
> >
> > Yeah, I forgot to mention that I removed the txlink member.
> 
> I am pretty sure you can also remove revents member from epitem.
> 
> It would greatly benefit to 32bits platforms, because resulting size would be 
> 64 bytes instead of 68 (so a 50 % reduction because of 64 bytes alignment)

Yes indee. That does not need to exist anymore, once the de-coupled loop 
is gone. Thx, I'll make a new patch later today.


- Davide


-
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/