Re: random(4) changes

[Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>]

Am Montag, 25. April 2016, 12:35:32 schrieb Andi Kleen:

Hi Andi,

> > > > If it is the latter, can you explain where the scalability issue comes
> > > > in?
> > > 
> > > A single pool which is locked/written to does not scale. Larger systems
> > > need multiple pools
> > 
> > That would imply that even when you have a system with 1000 CPUs, you want
> > to have a large amount of random numbers. Is this the use case?
> 
> That is right. Large systems do more work than small systems.
> If the system is for example handling SSL connections it needs
> more random numbers to handle more connections.
> 
> BTW the problems happen long before 1000 CPUs, more like 12-18 cores
> competing.
> 
> Also today's large system is tomorrow's small systems. The
> systems affected are actually not that large anymore.
> 
> The original numbers
> 
> Without patchkit:
> 
> 1 node:  1x
> 2 nodes: 0.75x
> 3 nodes: 0.55x
> 4 nodes: 0.42x

I have changed the LRNG now such that a multiple instantiation of the 
secondary DRBG can be implemented with very limited amount of code.

Thus, the proposal you have for the nonblocking_pool can be adapted.

Yet I have not implemented such duplication as I first would like to see 
whether the initial proposal of my LRNG is considered acceptable.

Ciao
Stephan