| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 07:13:40 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com> Cc: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: Scalability requirements for sysv ipc On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 02:33:24PM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote: > 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. I could give it a spin -- though I would need to be pointed to the patch and the test. Thanx, Paul -- 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