[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e5279721b8b81e23a1cf9685c4bea32a@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:49:22 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: calloc()/mmap() vs. fork()
On 2015-09-17 20:53, Solar Designer wrote:
> I've just tried changing our mem_calloc() to make it actually use
> calloc(), and using it for the hash tables and bitmaps in loader.c.
This was news to be, although git blame shows I should have been aware
of it. I regard it a bug and have now committed such a change.
> The result is surprising: fork() became slow. Like, it literally takes
> multiple seconds just to spawn the 7 child processes. So e.g. if I
> press a key a few seconds after all 8 processes are finally cracking, I
> see them display very different timestamps (up to 10 seconds apart).
> Perhaps our partial and out-of-order filling of the hash tables and
> bitmaps results in page tables that are costly to fork().
Was this with that multi-thread patch in use?
> We might want to revisit this once we implement keeping the loaded
> hashes in a shared memory region.
After reverting that problematic patch, I tried using calloc() in loader
with no problems (nor any clear benefit) but haven't committed that.
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
