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:	Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:13:04 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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

On Mon, Sep 07 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I was hoping this one would, but it's not showing anything. I even added
> > support for doing the ping and wakeup over a socket, to see if the pipe
> > test was doing well because of the sync wakeup we do there. The net
> > latency is a little worse, but still good. So no luck in making that app
> > so far.
> 
> Here's a version that bounces timestamps between a producer and a number
> of consumers (clients). Not really tested much, but perhaps someone can
> compare this on a box that boots BFS and see what happens.

And here's a newer version. It ensures that clients are running before
sending a timestamp, and it drops the first and last log entry to
eliminate any weird effects there. Accuracy should also be improved.

On an idle box, it'll usually log all zeroes. Sometimes I see 3-4msec
latencies, weird.

-- 
Jens Axboe


View attachment "latt.c" of type "text/x-csrc" (9793 bytes)