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: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:57:09 +0900 From: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com> To: Hu Tao <hutao@...fujitsu.com> CC: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.co> Subject: Re: [patch 00/15] CFS Bandwidth Control V6 (2011/06/15 17:37), Hu Tao wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 04:29:49PM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote: >> (2011/06/14 15:58), Hu Tao wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've run several tests including hackbench, unixbench, massive-intr >>> and kernel building. CPU is Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3430 @ 2.40GHz, >>> 4 cores, and 4G memory. >>> >>> Most of the time the results differ few, but there are problems: >>> >>> 1. unixbench: execl throughout has about 5% drop. >>> 2. unixbench: process creation has about 5% drop. >>> 3. massive-intr: when running 200 processes for 5mins, the number >>> of loops each process runs differ more than before cfs-bandwidth-v6. >>> >>> The results are attached. >> >> I know the score of unixbench is not so stable that the problem might >> be noises ... but the result of massive-intr is interesting. >> Could you give a try to find which piece (xx/15) in the series cause >> the problems? > > After more tests, I found massive-intr data is not stable, too. Results > are attached. The third number in file name means which patchs are > applied, 0 means no patch applied. plot.sh is easy to generate png > files. (Though I don't know what the 16th patch of this series is, anyway) I see that the results of 15, 15-1 and 15-2 are very different and that 15-2 is similar to without-patch. One concern is whether this unstable of data is really caused by the nature of your test (hardware, massive-intr itself and something running in background etc.) or by a hidden piece in the bandwidth patch set. Did you see "not stable" data when none of patches is applied? If not, which patch makes it unstable? Thanks, H.Seto -- 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