linux-kernel - Re: Epic regression in throughput since v2.6.23

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: <1252908942.19686.15.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date:	Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:15:42 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Serge Belyshev <belyshev@...ni.sinp.msu.ru>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: Epic regression in throughput since v2.6.23

On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 21:17 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> Anyway, I'm thinking of tracking forks/sec as a means of detecting the
> fork/exec load.  Or, maybe just enable it when there's > 1 buddy pair
> running.. or something.  After all, NEXT_BUDDY is about scalability, and
> make -j4 on a quad surely doesn't need any scalability help :)

But, this buddy vs fork/exec thing is not at all cut and dried.  Even
with fork/exec load being the primary CPU consumer, there are genuine
buddies to worry about when you've got a GUI running, next/last buddy
can reduce the chances that an oinker slips in between X and client.

Ponder...

(oil for rusty old ponder machine welcome, gears grinding)

	-Mike

--
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/