| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20100604064307.737085373@suse.de> Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:43:07 +1000 From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> Subject: [patch 0/4] Initial vfs scalability patches again OK, I realised what I was smoking last time. So I put down the pipe and went to score some stronger crack. And then: - reduced ifdefs as much as feasible - add more comments, avoided churn - vastly improved lock library code, works with lockdep - added helpers for file list iterations - lglock type for what was previously open coded in file list locking It looks in much better shape now I hope. Al would you consider them? With all patches applied, I ran some single threaded microbenchmarks, and it was difficult to tell much difference from the noise. I don't claim that there is no slowdown because there is more instructions and memory accesses for SMP. But it doesn't seem too bad. Opteron, ran each test 30 times. Each run lasts for 3 seconds performing as many operations as possible. Between each 10 runs, a rebooted. After all that you still get artifacts, oh well. Difference at 95.0% confidence (times, positive means patch is slower) dup/close No difference proven at 95.0% confidence open/close -2.48989% +/- 0.538414% creat/unlink 3.14688% +/- 0.32411% -- 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