linux-kernel - Re: [test] hackbench.c interactivity results: vanilla versus SD/RSDL

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <325618.89505.qm@web26701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:05:13 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Xenofon Antidides <xantidides@...oo.gr>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
Cc:	linux list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [test] hackbench.c interactivity results: vanilla versus SD/RSDL

----- Original Message ----
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
Cc: linux list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>; Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>; Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:22:49 PM
Subject: [test] hackbench.c interactivity results: vanilla versus SD/RSDL


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> * Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org> wrote:
> 
> > I'm cautiously optimistic that we're at the thin edge of the bugfix 
> > wedge now.
[...]

> and the numbers he posted:
> 
>  http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117448900626028&w=2

We been staring at these numbers for while now and we come to the conclusion they wrong.

The test is f is 3 tasks, two on different and one on same cpu as sh here:
virgin 2.6.21-rc3-rsdl-smp
top - 13:52:50 up 7 min, 12 users,  load average: 3.45, 2.89, 1.51

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  P COMMAND
 6560 root      31   0  2892 1236 1032 R   82  0.1   1:50.24 1 sh
 6558 root      28   0  1428  276  228 S   42  0.0   1:00.09 1 f
 6557 root      30   0  1424  280  228 R   35  0.0   1:00.25 0 f
 6559 root      39   0  1424  276  228 R   33  0.0   0:58.36 0 f

6560 sh is asking for 100% cpu on cpu number 1
6558 f is asking for 50% cpu on cpu number 1
6557 f is asking for 50% cpu on cpu number 0
6559 f is asking for 50% cpu on cpu number 0

So if 6560 and 6558 are asking for cpu from cpu number 1:
6560 wants 100% and 6558 wants 50%.
6560 should get 2/3 cpu 6558 should get 1/3 cpu

2.6.21-rc3-rsdl-smp gives 65% sh and 35% f

patched 2.6.21-rc3-rsdl-smp gives 60% sh and 40% f

2.6.20.3-smp gives 51% sh and 49% f

We think cpu correctness is 2.6.21-rc3-rsdl-smp
 in that test.

Xant





 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate 
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
-
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/