linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: more scalable list

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: <20100123113551.GB29555@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:35:51 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Don Mullis <don.mullis@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, airlied@...hat.com,
	dedekind@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: more scalable list_sort()

> Burning CPU time to save on IO is a very valid tradeoff in
> filesystem design - burning a few hundred millieseconds of CPU
> time can result in savcwinge tens of seconds of IO time. Hence
> passing big long lists to be sorted is not an indication of broken
> design, it's an indication of understanding CPU time vs IO time
> tradeoffs during design...

Burning long CPU time in kernel code without latency breaker code is always
a sign of broken design. When you burn you have to check for 
reschedules. It's that simple.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/