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]

Message-ID: <20140620153839.GB4904@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Jun 2014 08:38:39 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
Cc:	josh@...htriplett.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:20:36AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > I am putting together patches based on Eric Dumazet's suggestion and on a
> > variant of the above approach.  However, I do expect the distros to starve
> > to death between those two bales of hay.  But perhaps the actual patches
> > will inspire a bit of light to go with this thread's heat and smoke.
> 
> Yep. Note that the large systems are only a few and the smaller systems
> are many. You are penalizing the overwhelming majority for support of a
> few systems.

And the fraction of the small systems that care that much about latency
is also quite small.

Of course, if you have performance results that show otherwise, please
share them.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/