linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/12] Maintain preemptability count even for !CONFIG

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: <20091130105812.GG30150@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:58:12 +0200
From:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avi@...hat.com,
	mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/12] Maintain preemptability count even for
 !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:56:12PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:14:03AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30:02AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > > This adds significant overhead for the !PREEMPT case adding lots of code
> > > > in critical paths all over the place.
> > > I want to measure it. Can you suggest benchmarks to try?
> > 
> > AIM9 (reaim9)?
> Below are results for kernel 2.6.32-rc8 with and without the patch (only
> this single patch is applied).
> 
Forgot to tell. The results are average between 5 different runs.

--
			Gleb.
--
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/