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, 19 Jun 2014 11:09:16 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <>
To:	Christoph Lameter <>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <>,
	Dave Hansen <>,
	LKML <>,
	Josh Triplett <>,
	"Chen, Tim C" <>
Subject: Re: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 09:42:18AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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

That is a separate issue, but unnecessary calls to cond_resched()
should of course be removed -- no argument there.

							Thanx, Paul

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