linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 19/19] futex: Allow to make the private hash immutable.

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: <7f6028fd-99f4-4f91-a660-cd036712844e@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 21:18:55 +0530
From: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        André Almeida
 <andrealmeid@...lia.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 19/19] futex: Allow to make the private hash
 immutable.



On 4/10/25 20:58, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2025-04-10 20:22:08 [+0530], Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>> Hi Sebastian.
> Hi Shrikanth,
> 
>> It would be good option for the application to decide if it needs this.
> 
> You mean to have it as I introduced it here or something else?
> 

as you have introduced it here.

>> Using this option makes the perf regression goes away using previous number of buckets.
> 
> Okay, good to know. You test this on on ppc64le?

Yes.

> 
>> Acked-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
>>
>> base:
>> ./perf bench futex hash
>> Averaged 1556023 operations/sec (+- 0.08%), total secs = 10  <<-- 1.5M
>>
>> with series:
>> ./perf bench futex hash -b32768
>> Averaged 126499 operations/sec (+- 0.41%), total secs = 10   <<-- .12M
>>
>> ./perf bench futex hash -Ib32768
>> Averaged 1549339 operations/sec (+- 0.08%), total secs = 10  <<-- 1.5M
> Thank you for testing.
> …
>> nit: Does it makes sense to split this patch into futex and perf?
> 
> First I wanted to figure if we really do this. I have no idea if this
> regression would show up in real world use case or just here as part of
> the micro benchmark.
> And if we do this, it would probably make sense to have one perf patch
> which introduces -b & -I.  And then figure out if the additional option
> to prctl should be part of the resize patch or not. Probably we should
> enforce 0/1 of arg4 from the beginning so maybe folding this in makes
> sense.
>

ok.

> Sebastian