netdev - Re: Understanding lock contention in __udp4_lib_mcast

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: <51CC996F.3020507@hp.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:58:39 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@...advisors.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Understanding lock contention in __udp4_lib_mcast_deliver

On 06/27/2013 12:22 PM, Shawn Bohrer wrote:
> I'm looking for opportunities to improve the multicast receive
> performance for our application, and I thought I'd spend some time
> trying to understand what I thought might be a small/simple
> improvement.  Profiling with perf I see that there is spin_lock
> contention in __udp4_lib_mcast_deliver:
>
> 0.68%  swapper  [kernel.kallsyms]               [k] _raw_spin_lock
>         |
>         --- _raw_spin_lock
>            |
>            |--24.13%-- perf_adjust_freq_unthr_context.part.21
>            |
>            |--22.40%-- scheduler_tick
>            |
>            |--14.96%-- __udp4_lib_mcast_deliver

Are there other processes showing _raw_spin_lock time?  It may be more 
clear to add a --sort symbol,dso or some such to your perf report 
command.  Because what you show there suggests less than 1% of the 
active cycles are in _raw_spin_lock.

rick jones
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html