linux-kernel - Re: Scalability requirements for sysv ipc

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: <47E3B924.3000304@colorfullife.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:33:24 +0100
From:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:	Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Scalability requirements for sysv ipc

Nadia Derbey wrote:
> Manfred Spraul wrote:
>>
>> A microbenchmark on a single-cpu system doesn't help much (except 
>> that 2.6.25 is around factor 2 slower for sysv msg ping-pong between 
>> two tasks compared to the numbers I remember from older kernels....)
>>
>
> If I remember well, at that time I had used ctxbench and I wrote some 
> other small scripts.
> And the results I had were around 2 or 3% slowdown, but I have to 
> confirm that by checking in my archives.
>
Do you have access to multi-core systems? The "best case" for the rcu 
code would be
- 8 or 16 cores
- one instance of ctxbench running on each core, bound to that core.

I'd expect a significant slowdown. The big question is if it matters.

--
    Manfred
--
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/