linux-kernel - Re: first little problem with private futexes

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: <a36005b50705201201y724ac400u5581df86c62d9de2@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 20 May 2007 12:01:47 -0700
From:	"Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@...il.com>
To:	"Eric Dumazet" <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc:	"Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@...hat.com>,
	"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: first little problem with private futexes

On 5/20/07, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
> > 1.  do nothing, always use the shared futexes.  Not very attractive IMO
>
> Why do you find this non attractive ?
>
> How is it performance critical ?

You should know better than any other that the problem is not that the
problem itself is the only one affected.  If threads terminate all
other programs and threads are affected since the global locks for the
shared futexes are needed.  That's the case I'm concerned about.  It's
not really about a single app creating many many threads over and over
again.  It's about many apps which do use threads (and that number
will have to rise) starts and stop threads at a reasonable rate.  It's
just one more unnecessary point of contact between concurrently
running apps.
-
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/