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 19:29:30 -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 07:13:37PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 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.

Of course, it would also be good to measure this and see how much it
really hurts.

							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