linux-kernel - Re: [patch] sched: accurate user accounting

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, 14 Jun 2007 21:56:51 +0400 (MSD)
From:	Vassili Karpov <av1474@...tv.ru>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: accurate user accounting

Hello Ingo and others,

After reading http://lwn.net/Articles/236485/ and noticing few refernces
to accounting i decided to give CFS a try. With sched-cfs-v2.6.21.4-16
i get pretty weird results, it seems like scheduler is dead set on trying
to move the processes to different CPUs/cores all the time. And with hog
(manually tweaking the amount iterations) i get fairly strange resuls,
first of all the process is split between two cores, secondly while
integral load provided by the kernel looks correct, it's off by good
20 percent on each idividial core.

(http://www.boblycat.org/~malc/apc/hog-cfs-v16.png)

Thought this information might be of some interest.

P.S. How come the /proc/stat information is much closer to reality now?
      Something like what Con Kolivas suggested was added to sched.c?

-- 
vale
-
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/