linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] sched: select_idle

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:	Wed, 25 May 2016 13:11:31 -0400
From:	Chris Mason <clm@...com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	<mingo@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>, <mgalbraith@...e.de>,
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] sched: select_idle_siblings rewrite

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 06:24:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:51:20AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
>> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 12:48:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > Hai,
>> >
>> > here be a semi coherent patch series for the recent select_idle_siblings()
>> > tinkering. Happy benchmarking..
>>
>> This took a while, mostly because my original schbench showed your
>> patches were just as fast as our internal patch, but our production
>> benchmark showed a 5-10% regression.  My theory was just that schbench
>> wasn't fine grained enough, and the load would stop before the
>> regression kicked in.
>
>Just to be sure; regression as per your production kernel, not vs.
>mainline, right?

Sorry yes, that's correct.

-chris