linux-kernel - Re: Scheduler benchmarks

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:	Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:36:07 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Rob Hussey <robjhussey@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ck@....kolivas.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> i've meanwhile tested hackbench 90 and the performance difference 
> between -ck and -cfs-devel seems to be mostly down to the more precise 
> (but slower) sched_clock() introduced in v2.6.23 and to the startup 
> penalty of freshly created tasks.

Rob, another thing i just noticed in your .configs: you have 
CONFIG_PREEMPT=y enabled. Would it be possible to get a testrun with 
that disabled? That gives the best throughput and context-switch latency 
numbers. (CONFIG_PREEMPT might also have preemption artifacts - there's 
one report of it having _worse_ desktop latencies on certain hardware 
than !CONFIG_PREEMPT.)

	Ingo
-
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/