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  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, 19 Jun 2014 09:42:18 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <>
To:	Andi Kleen <>
cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <>,
	Dave Hansen <>,
	LKML <>,
	Josh Triplett <>,
	"Chen, Tim C" <>
Subject: Re: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Andi Kleen wrote:

> I still think it's totally the wrong direction to pollute so
> many fast paths with this obscure debugging check workaround
> unconditionally.
> cond_resched() is in EVERY sleeping lock and in EVERY memory allocation!
> And these are really critical paths for many workloads.
> If you really wanted to do this I think you would first need
> to define a cond_resched_i_am_not_fast() or somesuch.
> Or put it all behind some debugging ifdef.

Again I am fully on Andi's side here. Please remove these frequent calls
to cond_resched. If one wants a fully preemptable kernel then please use

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists