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 19:13:37 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <>
To:	Andi Kleen <>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <>,
	LKML <>,
	Josh Triplett <>,
	"Chen, Tim C" <>,
	Christoph Lameter <>
Subject: Re: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:42:00PM -0700, 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.

OOM prevention should count for something, I would hope.

> 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.

My first thought was to put it behind CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL, but everyone
seems to be enabling that one.

As mentioned earlier, I could potentially push the check behind
the need-resched check, which would get it off of the common case
of the code paths you call out above.

							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