linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to wakeup

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311252049580.30673@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:	Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:52:23 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
	"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>, tom.vaden@...com,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to wakeup

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 18:32 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > If the smp_mb() is heavy weight, then it will hurt massivly in the
> > case where the hash bucket is not empty, because we add the price for
> > the smp_mb() just for no gain.
> > 
> > In that context it would also be helpful to measure the overhead on
> > x86 for the !empty case.
> 
> Absolutely, I will add these comparisons. If we do notice that we end up
> hurting the !empty case, would the current patch using atomic ops still
> be considered? We have made sure that none of the changes in this set
> affects performance on other workloads/smaller systems.

Please read my last reply to the atomic ops approach.

Aside of that we need numbers for a significant range of !x86.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/