| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1162085335.14733.34.camel@mindpipe> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:28:55 -0400 From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@...-job.com> To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, thockin@...kin.org, Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com> Subject: Re: AMD X2 unsynced TSC fix? On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 12:33 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Saturday 28 October 2006 12:15, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > Yes it was, because the small gain of using a dual core with such > > a workload was clearly lost by that change. IIRC, I reached 25000 > > sessions/s on dual core with TSC if I didn't care about the clock, > > 20000 without TSC, and 18000 on single core+TSC. But with the sniffer, > > it was even worse : I had 500 kpps in dual-core+TSC, 70kpps without > > TSC and 300 kpps with single-core+TSC. Since I had to buy the same > > machines for both uses, this last argument was enough for me to stick > > to a single core. > > Ok, but it is a very specialized situation not applicable to most > others. I just say this for all the other people following the thread. > Again most workloads are not that gtod intensive. Haven't benchmarked or anything, but isn't X11 also a very gtod intensive workload? Lee - 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