linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH] CLONE_NEWIPC and exit

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

Date:	Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:01:25 -0500
From:	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>
To:	"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
Cc:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] CLONE_NEWIPC and exit_group()

Quoting Dmitry V. Levin (ldv@...linux.org):
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 03:04:26PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Patch to move kern_unmount() out of exit_group() code path is below.
> > Dmitry, could you check if it's beneficial for your use-case?
> 
> I've benchmarked a slightly modified test which is closer to our use-case
> (child processes are forked sequentially):

Did you run this in parallel, perhaps with numcpus/2 jobs plus a
hackbench running on the side?

> #define _GNU_SOURCE
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <sched.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <sys/wait.h>
> 
> int
> main(void)
> {
> 	int i;
> 	for (i = 0; i < 1024; i++) {
> 		if (fork()) {
> 			wait(NULL);
> 			continue;
> 		}
> 		unshare(CLONE_NEWIPC);
> 		exit(0);
> 	}
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> On 3.4.4 with rcu_barrier patch:
> 0.09user 0.00system 0:32.77elapsed 0%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1472maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+38017minor)pagefaults 0swaps
> 
> On 3.4.4 with rcu_barrier patch and your new patch:
> 0.00user 0.06system 0:32.77elapsed 0%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1472maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+38017minor)pagefaults 0swaps
> 
> So there is a clear difference in accounting (user vs system)

Yup, I'd argue that's a bad thing :)

> but no
> noticeable difference in the real time.

Thanks for testing!

-serge
--
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/