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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:40:39 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name> To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> Cc: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, mhocko@...e.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 08:31:33AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Laurent Dufour wrote: > > > On 28/03/2017 18:58, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:39:18AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > > I'll wait to see if there are any more concerns and send a v2 with your corrections. > > > > > > Have you tried drop-in replacement of mmap_sem with full range lock? > > > It would be interesting to see performance implication for this. > > > > > > > I've a patch that replace the mmap_sem with a full range lock, it seems > > to work fine for x86 and ppc64 for now. I'll send it soon. > > But I didn't yet check for performance. What is the best way to that ? > > I expect performance to take a measurable hit if we simply use full range > lock as a drop in replacement. My rwsem vs range lock measurements were > done with this in mind. We only win with range locks when improving the > level of parallelism. It would be hard sell if we would see performance degradation simple single-threaded workload. -- Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists