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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:06:42 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
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


* Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:

> > I'm personally curious as to what kind of scheduler issues this results 
> > in--I haven't done any BFS vs CFS tests with this option enabled yet.
> 
> I'll look for x264 source, and patch/piddle.

btw., would be nice to look at it via tools/perf/ as well:

  perf stat --repeat 3 ...

to see the basic hardware utilization (cycles/cache-misses, branch execution 
rate, instructions, etc.) and the basic parallelism metrics, at a glance.

i suspect "perf stat -e L1-icache-loads -e L1-icache-load-misses" would give 
us an even more detailed picture.

	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/