| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080312213255.GM27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:32:55 +0000 From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> Cc: "J.C. Pizarro" <jcpiza@...il.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 05:22:21PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > 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. ITYM a little before 2.4.0, and even prior to that it hadn't been under BKL. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists