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: Wed, 11 May 2011 11:28:48 +0200 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com, cl@...ux.com, npiggin@...nel.dk Subject: Re: [patch v2 0/5] percpu_counter: bug fix and enhancement Hey, Shaohua. On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:10:12PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > The new implementation uses lglock to protect percpu data. Each cpu has its > private lock while other cpu doesn't take. In this way _add doesn't need take > global lock anymore and remove the deviation. This still gives me about > about 5x ~ 6x faster (not that faster than the original 7x faster, but still > good) with the workload mentioned in patch 4. I'm afraid I'm not too thrilled about lglock + atomic64 usage. It is a very patchy approach which addresses a very specific use case which might just need a higher @batch. I just can't see enough benefits to justify the overhead and complexity. :-( Thanks. -- tejun -- 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