linux-kernel - Re: [test] hackbench.c interactivity results: vanilla versus SD/RSDL

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Xenofon Antidides <xantidides@...oo.gr>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
	linux list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [test] hackbench.c interactivity results: vanilla versus SD/RSDL


--- Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 15:05 +0000, Xenofon Antidides
> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> > To: Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
> > Cc: linux list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>;
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>; Mike
> Galbraith <efault@....de>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:22:49 PM
> > Subject: [test] hackbench.c interactivity results:
> vanilla versus SD/RSDL
> > 
> > 
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > 
> > > * Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I'm cautiously optimistic that we're at the
> thin edge of the bugfix 
> > > > wedge now.
> > [...]
> > 
> > > and the numbers he posted:
> > > 
> > > 
>
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117448900626028&w=2
> > 
> > We been staring at these numbers for while now and
> we come to the conclusion they wrong.
> > 
> > The test is f is 3 tasks, two on different and one
> on same cpu as sh here:
> > virgin 2.6.21-rc3-rsdl-smp
> > top - 13:52:50 up 7 min, 12 users,  load average:
> 3.45, 2.89, 1.51
> > 
> >   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM
>    TIME+  P COMMAND
> >  6560 root      31   0  2892 1236 1032 R   82  0.1
>   1:50.24 1 sh
> >  6558 root      28   0  1428  276  228 S   42  0.0
>   1:00.09 1 f
> >  6557 root      30   0  1424  280  228 R   35  0.0
>   1:00.25 0 f
> >  6559 root      39   0  1424  276  228 R   33  0.0
>   0:58.36 0 f
> 
> This is a 1 second sample, tasks migrate.
> 
> 	-Mike

Something different on many cpus? Sorry I was thinking
something other. I try 50% run + 50% sleep on one cpu
and mainline has big problem. Sorry for bad code I
copy bits to make it work. Start program first then
run bash 100% cpu (while : ; do : ; done). Try change
program forks from 1 till 3 or more mainline kernel
and bash gets 0%.



Xant


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.  
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
View attachment "fiftyp.c" of type "text/x-csrc" (2773 bytes)