linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:49:55 -0400
From:	Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>
To:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc:	tj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	mst@...hat.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com, RAPOPORT@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com> writes:

> On 03/18/2016 11:14 PM, Bandan Das wrote:
> [..]
>> Netperf:
>> Two guests running netperf in parallel.
>>     	   	       	          Without patches                  With patches
>>    
>> TCP_STREAM (10^6 bits/second)         975.45			     978.88	
>> TCP_RR (Trans/second)		      20121			     18820.82
>> UDP_STREAM (10^6 bits/second)	      1287.82		  	     1184.5
>> UDP_RR (Trans/second)		      20766.72			     19667.08
>> Time a 4G iso download		      2m 33 seconds		     3m 02 seconds
>
> So TCP stream stays the same everything else shows a regression? Not good.
> Have you an idea why this happens?

I am not sure yet but my guess is the way these patches implement cgroup
support. I will run some tests just with workqueues (and without these patches) and
see if the newer numbers are consistent with these.