linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] sched: Folding nohz load accounting more accurate

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:	Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:57:33 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>
Cc:	'Charles Wang' <muming.wq@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	'Ingo Molnar' <mingo@...hat.com>,
	'Charles Wang' <muming.wq@...bao.com>, 'Tao Ma' <tm@....ma>,
	'含黛' <handai.szj@...bao.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] sched: Folding nohz load accounting more accurate

On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 08:33 -0700, Doug Smythies wrote:
> 
> All that being said, what I typically do with a new code test is:
> 
> . select a known, previous bad operating point. For example 2
> processes, actual load average 0.30 (0.15 for each process) currently
> reporting ~1.5. 

OK, I'll try and apply this. Waiting 63 hours for feedback on patches is
something I'm not patient enough for.

Would this be: 

 ./waiter 2 900 230608 10000

I haven't even bothered reading the waiter proglet yet, but I did notice
the 'help' provided when started without arguments doesn't seem to
actually match what load_180 does.


--
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/