linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down

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: <20070607102123.GB12155@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:21:23 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Martin Peschke <mp3@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	jbaron@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, billh@...ppy.monkey.org,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down


* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:

> we have around 1400 locks in the kernel, this would give 414400 per cpu.
> 
> vs the old code:
> 
> 2048*(4*8) = 65536
> +
> 2048*(4*4*8 + 4*8) = 327680 per cpu
> 
> worst case
> 
> I'm not convinced 300 lines less code is worth that extra bloat.

agreed, this is not worth it. It would be acceptable if the statistics 
stuff was flexible enough to have the same footprint as the current 
lockstat data structures.

	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/