linux-kernel - Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance

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: <20080312172221.6b6dba95@bree.surriel.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:22:21 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	"J.C. Pizarro" <jcpiza@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:09:04 +0100
"J.C. Pizarro" <jcpiza@...il.com> wrote:

> Assume a SMP system that has 8 CPUs. The main problem of requesting
> pages is the BKL (Big Kernel Lock) in this SMP system used for mutual
> exclusion of the shared resource (the memory).
> 
> To solve this major problem, i propose you freely to allocate 8 local caches
> of (e.g.) 2 MiB each CPU (total 2MiB x 8 CPUs = 16 MiB) acting as
> 8 producer buffers for globally many consumer tasks (e.g. >= 20).
> 
> When the some producer buffer is empty then it does unfrequently BKL to
> allocate another 2 MiB more from the shared resource (the memory).

You really should read the source code before proposing ideas.

The kernel has done roughly what you describe since a little before
2.6.0.

-- 
All rights reversed.
--
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/