| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 23:55:57 +0000 From: James Courtier-Dutton <james.dutton@...il.com> To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched: automated per session task groups On 3 December 2010 05:11, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> wrote: > > I actually don't have a desktop setup handy to test "interactivity" (sad but > true -- working on grabbing one). But it looks better on under synthetic > load. > What tools are actually used to test "interactivity" ? I posted a tool to the list some time ago, but I don't think anyone noticed. My tool is very simple. When you hold a key down, it should repeat. It should repeat at a constant predictable interval. So, my tool just waits for key presses and times when each one occurred. The tester simply presses a key and holds it down. If the time between each key press is constant, it indicates good "interactivity". If the time between each key press varies a lot, it indicates bad "interactivity". You can reliably test if one kernel is better than the next using actual measurable figures. Kind Regards James -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists