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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:14:21 -0700 From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, david@...morbit.com, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> Subject: Re: page fault scalability (ext3, ext4, xfs) On 08/14/2013 06:11 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > The point is that if the goal is to measure page fault scalability, we > shouldn't have this other stuff happening as the same time as the page > fault workload. will-it-scale does several different tests probing at different parts of the fault path: https://www.sr71.net/~dave/intel/willitscale/systems/bigbox/3.11.0-rc2-dirty/foo.html It does that both for process and threaded workloads which lets it get pretty good coverage of different areas of code. I only posted data from half of one of these tests here because it was the only one that I found that both had noticeable overhead in the filesystem code. It also showed substantial, consistent, and measurable deltas between the different filesystems. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists