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 22:46:45 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, 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

On Mon, Sep 07 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
> > Agree, I was actually looking into doing joint latency for X 
> > number of tasks for the test app. I'll try and do that and see if 
> > we can detect something from that.
> 
> Could you please try latest -tip:
> 
>    http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README
> 
> (c26f010 or later)
> 
> Does it get any better with make -j128 build jobs? Peter just fixed 

The compile 'problem' is on my workstation, which is a dual core Intel
core 2. I use -j4 on that typically. On the bigger boxes, I don't notice
any interactivity problems, largely because I don't run anything latency
sensitive on those :-)

> a bug in the SMP load-balancer that can cause interactivity problems 
> on large CPU count systems.

Worth trying on the dual core box?

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/