linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.0-rc4

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BANLkTiksHMkPr-ZXJ6iCpUCupmpapU5D2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:28:24 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.0-rc4

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
>
>> and the
>> conversion from spinlocks to mutexes for the anon_vma locking ended up
>> causing a scalability issue that required fixing.
>
> FWIW it's still ~16% slower. Does that count as fixed?

Well, so far I haven't really seen any suggestions on how to improve
it much further.

3.0 will still be noticeably faster than 2.6.39 due to the other
changes made (ie the read-ahead), so yes, the regression itself is
fixed.

But performance on that particular benchmark with that particular
machine is clearly not optimal, in that there are known setups that
would be faster still.

Of course, the reason for the mutex conversion was _other_ loads,
where the spinlocks had bad behavior. So it's a balancing act. And I
suspect we've reached a reasonable point in that balancing, yes.

                  Linus
--
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/