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]

Date:	Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:33:43 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely   Fair Scheduler [CFS]


* Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com> wrote:

> All of my testing has been on desktop machines, although in most cases 
> they were really loaded desktops which had load avg 10..100 from time 
> to time, and none were low memory machines. Up to CFS v3 I thought 
> nicksched was my winner, now CFSv3 looks better, by not having 
> stumbles under stupid loads.

nice! I hope CFSv4 kept that good tradition too ;)

> I have not tested:
>   1 - server loads, nntp, smtp, etc
>   2 - low memory machines
>   3 - uniprocessor systems
> 
> I think this should be done before drawing conclusions. Or if someone 
> has tried this, perhaps they would report what they saw. People are 
> talking about smoothness, but not how many pages per second come out 
> of their overloaded web server.

i tested heavily swapping systems. (make -j50 workloads easily trigger 
that) I also tested UP systems and a handful of SMP systems. I have also 
tested massive_intr.c which i believe is an indicator of how fairly CPU 
time is distributed between partly sleeping partly running server 
threads. But i very much agree that diverse feedback is sought and 
welcome, both from those who are happy with the current scheduler and 
those who are unhappy about it.

	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/