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:	Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:24:44 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@...or.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 13:09 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 12:28 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > 
> > > > No difference. Then I tried switching NO_NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS on, and then
> > > > I get:
> > > > 
> > > >  Performance counter stats for 'xmodmap .xmodmap-carl':
> > > > 
> > > >        9.009137  task-clock-msecs         #      0.447 CPUs 
> > > >              18  context-switches         #      0.002 M/sec
> > > >               1  CPU-migrations           #      0.000 M/sec
> > > >             315  page-faults              #      0.035 M/sec
> > > >   <not counted>  cycles                  
> > > >   <not counted>  instructions            
> > > >   <not counted>  cache-references        
> > > >   <not counted>  cache-misses            
> > > > 
> > > >     0.020167093  seconds time elapsed
> > > > 
> > > > Woot!
> > > 
> > > Something is very seriously hosed on that box... clock?
> > 
> > model name      : Genuine Intel(R) CPU           T2400  @ 1.83GHz
> > 
> > Throttles down to 1.00GHz when idle.
> > 
> > > Can you turn it back on, and do..
> > 
> > I guess you mean turn NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS back on, correct?
> > 
> > > 	while sleep .1; do cat /proc/sched_debug >> foo; done 
> > > ..on one core, and (quickly;) xmodmap .xmodmap-carl, then send me a few
> > > seconds worth (gzipped up) to eyeball?
> > 
> > Attached.
> 
> xmodmap doesn't seem to be running in this sample.

That's weird, it was definitely running. I did:

sleep 1; xmodmap .xmodmap-carl

in one xterm, and then switched to the other and ran the sched_debug
dump. I have to do it this way, as X will not move focus once xmodmap
starts running. It could be that xmodmap is mostly idle, and the real
work is done by Xorg and/or xfwm4 (my window manager).

-- 
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/