| 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: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:40:24 +0300 From: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net> To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Evgeniy Polyakov <s0mbre@...rvice.net.ru>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [tbench regression fixes]: digging out smelly deadmen. On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:15:26AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger (shemminger@...tta.com) wrote: > Has anyone looked into the impact of port randomization on this benchmark. > If it is generating lots of sockets quickly there could be an impact: > * port randomization causes available port space to get filled non-uniformly > and what was once a linear scan may have to walk over existing ports. > (This could be improved by a hint bitmap) > > * port randomization adds at least one modulus operation per socket > creation. This could be optimized by using a loop instead. In this benchmark only two sockets are created per client for the whole run, so this should not have any impact on performance. -- Evgeniy Polyakov -- 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