linux-kernel - Re: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability

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:	Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:42:00 -0700
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability

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.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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/