linux-kernel - Re: [REPORT] First "glitch1" results, 2.6.21-rc7-git6-CFSv5 + SD 0.46

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:	Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:00:54 -0400
From:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Ed Tomlinson <edt@....ca>, "Kolivas, Con" <kernel@...ivas.org>,
	Linux Kernel M/L <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
Subject: Re: [REPORT] First "glitch1" results, 2.6.21-rc7-git6-CFSv5 + SD
 0.46

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ed Tomlinson <edt@....ca> wrote:
> 
>>> SD 0.46		1-2 FPS
>>> cfs v5 nice -19	219-233 FPS
>>> cfs v5 nice 0 	1000-1996
>>    cfs v5 nice -10  60-65 FPS
> 
> the problem is, the glxgears portion of this test is an _inverse_ 
> testcase.
> 
> The reason? glxgears on true 3D hardware will _not_ use X, it will 
> directly use the 3D driver of the kernel. So by renicing X to -19 you 
> give the xterms more chance to show stuff - the performance of the 
> glxgears will 'degrade' - but that is what you asked for: glxgears is 
> 'just another CPU hog' that competes with X, it's not a "true" X client.
> 
> if you are after glxgears performance in this test then you'll get the 
> best performance out of this by renicing X to +19 or even SCHED_BATCH.
> 
Several points on this...

First, I don't think this is accelerated in the way you mean, the 
machine is a test server, with motherboard video using the 945G video 
driver. Given the limitations of the support in that setup, I don't 
think it qualified as "true 3D hardware," although I guess I could try 
using the vesafb version as a test.

The 2nd thing I note is that on FC6 this scheduler seems to confuse 
'top' to some degree, since the glxgears is shown as taking 51% of the 
CPU (one core), while the state breakdown shows about 73% in idle, 
waitio, and int. image attached.

After I upgrade the kernel and cfs to the absolute latest I'll repeat 
this, as well as test with vesafb, and my planned run under heavy load.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot

Download attachment "top.png" of type "image/png" (58571 bytes)