linux-kernel - Re: [TEST RESULT]massive_intr.c -- cfs/vanilla/sd-0.40

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, 16 Apr 2007 12:22:23 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	surya.prabhakar@...ro.com, kernel@...ivas.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, npiggin@...e.de, efault@....de,
	arjan@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, wli@...omorphy.com,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [TEST RESULT]massive_intr.c -- cfs/vanilla/sd-0.40


* Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@...fujitsu.com> wrote:

> You are welcome. I can use larger machine by chance, and also tested 
> there just now.
> 
> Test environment
> ================
> 
>  - kernel:         2.6.21-rc6-CFS
>  - run time:       300 secs
>  - # of CPU:       12
>  - # of processes: 200 or 2400
> 
> Result
> ===================================
> 
>   +----------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+
>   |   # of   |   # of    | avg   | max  | min  |  stdev |
>   |   CPUs   | processes |       |      |      |        |
>   +----------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+
>   |          |       200 |  2250 | 2348 | 2204 |     64 |
>   | 12(ia64) +-----------+-------+------+------+--------+
>   |          |      2400 | 187.5 |  197 |  176 |    4.3 |
>   +----------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+
> 
> Looks like good too.

yeah. The spread between min and max is 11%, the spread between stddev 
and avg is 2.2%, which is quite OK for so many tasks.

> BTW, I've a question. Actually this problem is fixed on CFS and DS. 
> However they are mostly written from scratch and doeesn't suitable for 
> stable version, for example 2.6.20.X. Can your other patch be 
> compromise for stable version? Although that patch is not perfect, but 
> I think it's preferable to leave it alone.

i'm afraid that small patch is not suitable for a general purpose Linux 
release (it hits interactivity way too much) - that's what this 
years-long struggle was about. But you could apply it to a special 
server-centric kernel.

	Ingo
-
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/