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: <20080804235838.GJ7290@sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:58:38 -0500
From:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Stephen Champion <schamp@....com>, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Scale pidhash_shift/pidhash_size up based on
	num_possible_cpus().

On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 01:36:38PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Stephen Champion <schamp@....com> writes:
> If we want something that tunes to the work load I expect a radix tree
> would be best.  If the goal after 4k cpus is 64k cpus which I heard someone
> mention I think that is what you really want.  A design that scales to
> the workload on the system.

But if we simply scale based upon num_possible_cpus(), we get a relatively
representative scaling function.  Usually, customers buy machines with 1,
2, or 4GB per cpu.  I would expect a waste of 256k, 512k, or even 1m to
be acceptable at this size of machine.

For 2.6.27, would you accept an upper cap based on the memory size
algorithm you have now and adjusted for num_possible_cpus()?  Essentially
the first patch I posted.

I would like to try and not be responsible for the radix tree
implementation as I have other more pressing obligations.  If, however,
it was a condition of getting an interim solution into 2.6.27, I would
be willing to discuss this with my management.

Thanks,
Robin
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ