linux-kernel - Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:30:05 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Jason Garrett-Glaser <darkshikari@...il.com>,
	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS

On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 06:23 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> Having said that, we generally try to make things perform well without apps 
> having to switch themselves to SCHED_BATCH. Mike, do you think we can make 
> x264 perform as well (or nearly as well) under SCHED_OTHER as under 
> SCHED_BATCH?

It's not bad as is, except for ultrafast mode.  START_DEBIT is the
biggest problem there.  I don't think SCHED_OTHER will ever match
SCHED_BATCH for this load, though I must say I haven't full-spectrum
tested.  This load really wants RR scheduling, and wakeup preemption
necessarily perturbs run order.

I'll probably piddle with it some more, it's an interesting load.

	-Mike

--
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/