linux-kernel - semaphore and mutex in current Linux kernel (3.2.2)

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <491D6B4EAD0A714894D8AD22F4BDE0439F94AB@SCYBEXDAG02.amd.com>
Date:	Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:56:44 +0000
From:	"Chen, Dennis (SRDC SW)" <Dennis1.Chen@....com>
To:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: semaphore and mutex in current Linux kernel (3.2.2)

Documentation/mutex-design.txt:

"- 'struct mutex' is smaller on most architectures: E.g. on x86,
   'struct semaphore' is 20 bytes, 'struct mutex' is 16 bytes.
   A smaller structure size means less RAM footprint, and better
   CPU-cache utilization."
================================================================
Now in my x86-64 32-bit Linux environment, 'struct semaphone' is 16 bytes,
'struct mutex' is 20 bytes. So seems the RAM footprint advantages are not there...

For the performance advantages followed, I don't have the ./test-mutex and maybe the 
testing environment, so haven't the 1st hand data for this item...

--
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/