[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-api
Subject:    Re: [resend][PATCH] Added PR_SET_PROCTITLE_AREA option for prctl()
From:       KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro () jp ! fujitsu ! com>
Date:       2009-10-13 0:03:22
Message-ID: 20091013083744.C747.A69D9226 () jp ! fujitsu ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 04:03:45 +0900 (JST)
> KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Start simple.  What's wrong with mutex_lock() on the reader and writer
> > > sides?  rwsems might be OK too.
> > > 
> > > In both cases we should think about whether persistent readers can
> > > block the writer excessively though.
> > 
> > I thought your mention seems reasonable. then I mesured various locking
> > performance.
> > 
> > 		no-contention	read-read contetion	read-write contention
> > w/o patch	4627 ms		 7575 ms		 N/A
> > mutex		5717 ms		33872 ms (!)		14793 ms
> > rw-semaphoe	6846 ms		10734 ms		36156 ms (!)
> > seqlock		4754 ms		 7558 ms		 9373 ms
> > 
> > Umm, seqlock is significantly better than other.
> 
> Sure, but even the worst case there is 1,000,000 operations in 34
> seconds (yes?). 33 microseconds for a /proc read while under a specific
> local DoS attack is OK!
> 
> If so then all implementations are acceptable and we should choose the
> simplest, most-obviously-correct one.

Hm, ok!

I had guessed you don't accept this slowness. but my guess was wrong.
I have no objection to use rw-semaphoe if you accept it. 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]