linux-kernel - Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

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: <20070421154614.GA26169@elte.hu>
Date:	Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:46:14 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, caglar@...dus.org.tr,
	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44


* Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:

> I promised to perform some tests on your code. I'm short in time right 
> now, but I observed behaviours that should be commented on.

thanks for the feedback!

> 3) CFS-v4
> 
>   Feels even better, mouse movements are very smooth even under high 
>   load. I noticed that X gets reniced to -19 with this scheduler. I've 
>   not looked at the code yet but this looked suspicious to me. I've 
>   reniced it to 0 and it did not change any behaviour. Still very 
>   good. The 64 ocbench share equal CPU time and show exact same 
>   progress after 2000 iterations. The CPU load is more smoothly spread 
>   according to vmstat, and there's no idle (see below). BUT I now 
>   think it was wrong to let new processes start with no timeslice at 
>   all, because it can take tens of seconds to start a new process when 
>   only 64 ocbench are there. [...]

ok, i'll modify that portion and add back the 50%/50% parent/child CPU 
time sharing approach again. (which CFS had in -v1) That should not 
change the rest of your test and should improve the task startup 
characteristics.

	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/