| 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: <20080506111831.GG19219@parisc-linux.org> Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 05:18:31 -0600 From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> To: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: AIM7 40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1 On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 01:48:24PM +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > Comparing with kernel 2.6.25, ???AIM7 (use tmpfs) has ???more than 40% with 2.6.26-rc1 > on my 8-core stoakley, 16-core tigerton, and Itanium Montecito. Bisect located > below patch. > > 64ac24e738823161693bf791f87adc802cf529ff is first bad commit > commit 64ac24e738823161693bf791f87adc802cf529ff > Author: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> > Date: Fri Mar 7 21:55:58 2008 -0500 > > Generic semaphore implementation > > > After I manually reverted the patch against 2.6.26-rc1 while fixing lots of > conflictions/errors, aim7 regression became less than 2%. 40%?! That's shocking. Can you tell which semaphore was heavily contended? I have a horrible feeling that it's the BKL. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- 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