linux-kernel - Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

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, 7 Sep 2009 16:14:58 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements


* Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 07 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Scheduler       Runtime         Max lat     Avg lat     Std dev
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > CFS             100             951         462         267
> > CFS-x2          100             983         484         308
> > BFS
> > BFS-x2
> 
> Those numbers are buggy, btw, it's not nearly as bad. But 
> responsiveness under compile load IS bad though, the test app just 
> didn't quantify it correctly. I'll see if I can get it working 
> properly.

What's the default latency target on your box:

  cat /proc/sys/kernel/sched_latency_ns

?

And yes, it would be wonderful to get a test-app from you that would 
express the kind of pain you are seeing during compile jobs.

	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/