linux-kernel - rr_interval experiments

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, 20 Apr 2007 10:47:57 +1000
From:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
To:	linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: rr_interval experiments

On Friday 20 April 2007 01:01, Con Kolivas wrote:
> This then allows the maximum rr_interval to be as large as 5000
> milliseconds.

Just for fun, on a core2duo make allnoconfig make -j8 here are the build time 
differences (on a 1000HZ config) machine:

16ms:
53.68user 4.81system 0:34.27elapsed 170%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k

1ms:
56.73user 4.83system 0:36.03elapsed 170%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k

5000ms:
52.88user 4.77system 0:32.37elapsed 178%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k

For the record, 16ms is what SD v0.43 would choose as the default value on 
this hardware. A load with a much lower natural context switching rate than a 
kernel compile, as you said Nick, would show even greater discrepancy in 
these results.

Fun eh? Note these are not for any comparison with anything else; just to show 
the effect rr_interval changes have on throughput.

-- 
-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/