| 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: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:59:53 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.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, 2009-11-30 at 12:58 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > 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. Would be good to also report the variance over those 5 runs, allows us to see if the difference is within the noise. -- 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