linux-kernel - Re: AMD X2 unsynced TSC fix?

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]

Date:	Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:28:55 -0400
From:	Lee Revell <rlrevell@...-job.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, thockin@...kin.org,
	Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: AMD X2 unsynced TSC fix?

On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 12:33 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Saturday 28 October 2006 12:15, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 
> > Yes it was, because the small gain of using a dual core with such
> > a workload was clearly lost by that change. IIRC, I reached 25000
> > sessions/s on dual core with TSC if I didn't care about the clock,
> > 20000 without TSC, and 18000 on single core+TSC. But with the sniffer,
> > it was even worse : I had 500 kpps in dual-core+TSC, 70kpps without
> > TSC and 300 kpps with single-core+TSC. Since I had to buy the same
> > machines for both uses, this last argument was enough for me to stick
> > to a single core.
> 
> Ok, but it is a very specialized situation not applicable to most
> others. I just say this for all the other people following the thread.
> Again most workloads are not that gtod intensive.

Haven't benchmarked or anything, but isn't X11 also a very gtod
intensive workload?

Lee

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/