linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff w/ auto tuning

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

Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:31:13 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aquini@...hat.com, walken@...gle.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, lwoodman@...hat.com, jeremy@...p.org,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, knoel@...hat.com,
	chegu_vinod@...com, raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff
 w/ auto tuning

On 01/10/2013 10:19 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 17:26 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
>> Please let me know if you manage to break this code in any way,
>> so I can fix it...
>
> I didn't break it, but did let it play with rq->lock contention.  Using
> cyclictest -Smp99 -i 100 -d 0, with 3 rt tasks for pull_rt_task() to
> pull around appears to have been a ~dead heat.

Good to hear that the code seems to be robust. It seems to
help prevent performance degradation in some workloads, and
nobody seems to have found regressions yet.

Thank you for testing.
--
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/