linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] lockless sys_times and posix_cpu_clock

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: <54076022.80202@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:38:26 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Theurer <atheurer@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, srao@...hat.com, lwoodman@...hat.com,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] lockless sys_times and posix_cpu_clock_get

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/19/2014 05:21 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> 
>> Thanks to the feedback from Oleg, Peter, Mike, and Frederic, I
>> seem to have a patch series that manages to do times() 
>> locklessly, and apparently correctly.
> 
> 
>> 
>> Oleg points out that the monotonicity alone is not enough of a 
>> guarantee, but that should probably be attacked separately,
>> since that issue is equally present with and without these
>> patches...
>> 
>> The test case below, slightly changed from the one posted by
>> Spencer Candland in 2009, now runs in 11 seconds instead of 5
>> minutes.
>> 
>> Is it worthwhile?  There apparently are some real workloads that
>> call times() a lot, and I believe Sanjay and Andrew have one
>> sitting around.
> 
> Thanks for doing this.  When running a OLTP workload in a KVM VM,
> we saw a 71% increase in performance!  do_sys_times() was a big
> bottleneck for us.

Thanks Andrew, a 71% performance increase seems like it would be
enough to justify merging these patches...


Peter, Ingo, Andrew,

Do any of you have an objection to these patches?

Which tree should I merge them through?

I am happy to resubmit them against any tree, just let
me know where you want the patches to go.

thanks,

Rik
- -- 
All rights reversed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUB2AiAAoJEM553pKExN6DlKsH/RygM0SAcKcqbhk7qbKgQsFI
fe9mzJeDg5X2OVW1LuKKhpdo0wPiJ6arg3s2kWnJ8YuToMlIYjFwh9V+fwk1p7bV
4X8KYEK1DyJux8ZYwOBXlZORL+mE30scwuOF8B0sY+TepiRHeorv0srTIXgJfGyJ
avv95X/hx5JSqjAeRomHPmIX8VzgbHTXPEzWxVj+64qehI63CqyLGXXSlHPvFL4D
uhIRvCC4WxKNldUX20HZFUlQETsJttWoM14SiT1HZbfZNJxDMkD6kjcNl7Uimw9j
gVQeE4qy5OkdY1RSsVN35mg+mGA8kzUoQV0aEkogXwbJYNB+wFQ7OEupA1BKiGw=
=6lUC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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/