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  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]
Date:	Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:47:23 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <>
To:	Jie Chen <>
Cc:	Simon Holm Th??gersen <>,
	Eric Dumazet <>,,
	Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4

* Jie Chen <> wrote:

>> the moment you saturate the system a bit more, the numbers should 
>> improve even with such a ping-pong test.
> You are right. If I manually do load balance (bind unrelated processes 
> on the other cores), my test code perform as well as it did in the 
> kernel 2.6.21.

so right now the results dont seem to be too bad to me - the higher 
overhead comes from two threads running on two different cores and 
incurring the overhead of cross-core communications. In a true 
spread-out workloads that synchronize occasionally you'd get the same 
kind of overhead so in fact this behavior is more informative of the 
real overhead i guess. In 2.6.21 the two threads would stick on the same 
core and produce artificially low latency - which would only be true in 
a real spread-out workload if all tasks ran on the same core. (which is 
hardly the thing you want on openmp)

In any case, if i misinterpreted your numbers or if you just disagree, 
or if have a workload/test that shows worse performance that it 
could/should, let me know.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists