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]

Date:	Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:26:49 +1000
From:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
To:	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>
Cc:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	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
Subject: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

On Sunday 22 April 2007 04:17, Gene Heskett wrote:
> More first impressions of sd-0.44 vs CFS-v4

Thanks Gene.
>
> CFS-v4 is quite smooth in terms of the users experience but after prolonged
> observations approaching 24 hours, it appears to choke the cpu hog off a
> bit even when the system has nothing else to do.  My amanda runs went from
> 1 to 1.5 hours depending on how much time it took gzip to handle the amount
> of data tar handed it, up to about 165m & change, or nearly 3 hours pretty
> consistently over 5 runs.
>
> sd-0.44 so far seems to be handling the same load (theres a backup running
> right now) fairly well also, and possibly theres a bit more snap to the
> system now.  A switch to screen 1 from this screen 8, and the loading of
> that screen image, which is the Cassini shot of saturn from the backside,
> the one showing that teeny dot to the left of Saturn that is actually us,
> took 10 seconds with the stock 2.6.21-rc7, 3 seconds with the best of
> Ingo's patches, and now with Con's latest, is 1 second flat. Another screen
> however is 4 seconds, so maybe that first scren had been looked at since I
> rebooted. However, amanda is still getting estimates so gzip hasn't put a
> tiewrap around the kernels neck just yet.
>
> Some minutes later, gzip is smunching /usr/src, and the machine doesn't
> even know its running as sd-0.44 isn't giving gzip more than 75% to gzip,
> and probably averaging less than 50%. And it scared me a bit as it started
> out at not over 5% for the first minute or so.  Running in the 70's now
> according to gkrellm, with an occasional blip to 95%.  And the machine
> generally feels good.
>
> I had previously given CFS-v4 a 95 score but that was before I saw the
> general slowdown, and I believe my first impression of this one is also a
> 95.  This on a scale of the best one of the earlier CFS patches being 100,
> and stock 2.6.21-rc7 gets a 0.0.  This scheduler seems to be giving gzip
> ever more cpu as time progresses, and the cpu is warming up quite nicely,
> from about 132F idling to 149.9F now.  And my keyboard is still alive and
> well.

I'm not sure how much weight to put on what you see as the measured cpu usage. 
I have a feeling it's being wrongly reported in SD currently. Concentrate 
more on the actual progress and behaviour of things as you've already done.

> Generally speaking, Con, I believe this one is also a keeper.  And we'll
> see how long a backup run takes.

Great thanks for feedback.

-- 
-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/