linux-kernel - Re: files/process scaling problem? (was: [PATCH] Export shmem_file_setup and shmem

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: <200808042346.51391.ioe-lkml@rameria.de>
Date:	Mon, 4 Aug 2008 23:46:50 +0200
From:	Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...eria.de>
To:	Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: files/process scaling problem? (was: [PATCH] Export shmem_file_setup and shmem_getpage for DRM-GEM)

On Monday 04 August 2008, Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 15:11 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > X libraries provide the event loop so that isn't really as complex as it
> > seems.
> 
> Uh, no, X doesn't. Gtk+ and Qt provide event loops that applications may
> use, but still many choose to roll their own.

Ok, how many need support for GEM? How many of them would change their
event loop, if they can get better performance?

Maybe have a slow path for legacy behavior?

Really, the sleeping part of of event loops is usually hidden 
in some libraries and the applications have a big switch statement 
somewhere to dispatch the reasons for wakeup.

> >  Shuffling the handles around for the benefit of the odd legacy app
> > isn't something I'd disagree with but DRI and X in the general case can
> > determine the event loop system used by the application.
> 
> Yeah, it would be nice if we could just fix all of the existing
> applications. 

That is never required as long as only performance suffers, 
not functionality.

And the applications doing every syscall themselves are used to the pain :-)


Best Regards

Ingo Oeser
--
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/