[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091012122246.a941013b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:22:46 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Timo Sirainen <tss@....fi>
Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH] Added PR_SET_PROCTITLE_AREA option for prctl()
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 04:03:45 +0900 (JST)
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > Start simple. What's wrong with mutex_lock() on the reader and writer
> > sides? rwsems might be OK too.
> >
> > In both cases we should think about whether persistent readers can
> > block the writer excessively though.
>
> I thought your mention seems reasonable. then I mesured various locking
> performance.
>
> no-contention read-read contetion read-write contention
> w/o patch 4627 ms 7575 ms N/A
> mutex 5717 ms 33872 ms (!) 14793 ms
> rw-semaphoe 6846 ms 10734 ms 36156 ms (!)
> seqlock 4754 ms 7558 ms 9373 ms
>
> Umm, seqlock is significantly better than other.
Sure, but even the worst case there is 1,000,000 operations in 34
seconds (yes?). 33 microseconds for a /proc read while under a specific
local DoS attack is OK!
If so then all implementations are acceptable and we should choose the
simplest, most-obviously-correct one.
--
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