linux-kernel - Re: AIM7 40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1

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: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805070757170.32269@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 7 May 2008 08:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: AIM7 40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1



On Wed, 7 May 2008, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > But my preferred option would indeed be just turning it back into a 
> > spinlock - and screw latency and BKL preemption - and having the RT people 
> > who care deeply just work on removing the BKL in the long run.
> 
> It isn't as if the RT build can't use a different lock type to the
> default build.

Well, considering just *how* bad the new BKL apparently is, I think that's 
a separate issue. The semaphore implementation is simply not worth it. At 
a minimum, it should be a mutex.

> > Is BKL preemption worth it? Sounds very dubious. Sounds even more dubious 
> > when we now apparently have even more reason to aim for removing the BKL 
> > rather than trying to mess around with it.
> 
> We have some horrible long lasting BKL users left unfortunately.

Quite frankly, maybe we _need_ to have a bad BKL for those to ever get 
fixed. As it was, people worked on trying to make the BKL behave better, 
and it was a failure. Rather than spend the effort on trying to make it 
work better (at a horrible cost), why not just say "Hell no - if you have 
issues with it, you need to work with people to get rid of the BKL 
rather than cluge around it".

			Linus
--
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/