linux-kernel - Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

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]

Message-Id: <200704190749.43621.kernel@kolivas.org>
Date:	Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:49:42 +1000
From:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steve Fox <drfickle@...ibm.com>,
	Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

On Wednesday 18 April 2007 22:33, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 April 2007 22:14, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:33:56PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 18 April 2007 18:55, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > Again, for comparison 2.6.21-rc7 mainline:
> > > >
> > > > 508.87user 32.47system 2:17.82elapsed 392%CPU
> > > > 509.05user 32.25system 2:17.84elapsed 392%CPU
> > > > 508.75user 32.26system 2:17.83elapsed 392%CPU
> > > > 508.63user 32.17system 2:17.88elapsed 392%CPU
> > > > 509.01user 32.26system 2:17.90elapsed 392%CPU
> > > > 509.08user 32.20system 2:17.95elapsed 392%CPU
> > > >
> > > > So looking at elapsed time, a granularity of 100ms is just behind the
> > > > mainline score. However it is using slightly less user time and
> > > > slightly more idle time, which indicates that balancing might have
> > > > got a bit less aggressive.
> > > >
> > > > But anyway, it conclusively shows the efficiency impact of such tiny
> > > > timeslices.
> > >
> > > See test.kernel.org for how (the now defunct) SD was performing on
> > > kernbench. It had low latency _and_ equivalent throughput to mainline.
> > > Set the standard appropriately on both counts please.
> >
> > I can give it a run. Got an updated patch against -rc7?
>
> I said I wasn't pursuing it but since you're offering, the rc6 patch should
> apply ok.
>
> http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc6-sd-0.40.patch

Oh and if you go to the effort of trying you may as well try the timeslice 
tweak to see what effect it has on SD as well.

/proc/sys/kernel/rr_interval

100 is the highest.

-- 
-ck
-
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/