linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.21-rc3-mm1 RSDL results

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:	Fri, 9 Mar 2007 20:26:56 -0600
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc3-mm1 RSDL results

On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:20:22PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Progress at last! And without any patches! Well those look very reasonable to 
> me. Especially since -j5 is a worst case scenario.

Well that's with a noyield patch and your sched_tick fix.

> But would you say it's still _adequate_ with ccache considering you
> only have 1/6th cpu left for X? With and without ccache it's quite a
> different workload so they will behave differently.

No, I don't think 1/6th is being left for X in the ccache case so I
think there's a bug lurking here. My memload, execload, and forkload
test cases did better even with X niced.

To confirm, I've just run 15 instances of memload with unniced Xorg
and it performs better than make -j 5 with ccache.

If I have some time tomorrow, I'll try to do a straight -mm1 to mm2
comparison with different loads.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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/