| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200704240938.07482.mgd@technosis.de>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:37:54 +0200
From: Michael Gerdau <mgd@...hnosis.de>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>,
Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@....jussieu.fr>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: [REPORT] cfs-v5 vs sd-0.46
Hi list,
with cfs-v5 finally booting on my machine I have run my daily
numbercrunching jobs on both cfs-v5 and sd-0.46, 2.6.21-v7 on
top of a stock openSUSE 10.2 (X86_64). Config for both kernel
is the same except for the X boost option in cfs-v5 which on
my system didn't work (X still was @ -19; I understand this will
be fixed in -v6). HZ is 250 in both.
System is a Dell XPS M1710, Intel Core2 2.33GHz, 4GB,
NVIDIA GeForce Go 7950 GTX with proprietary driver 1.0-9755
I'm running three single threaded perl scripts that do double
precision floating point math with little i/o after initially
loading the data.
Both cfs and sd showed very similar behavior when monitored in top.
I'll show more or less representative excerpt from a 10 minutes
log, delay 3sec.
sd-0.46
top - 00:14:24 up 1:17, 9 users, load average: 4.79, 4.95, 4.80
Tasks: 3 total, 3 running, 0 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 99.8%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.2%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 3348628k total, 1648560k used, 1700068k free, 64392k buffers
Swap: 2097144k total, 0k used, 2097144k free, 828204k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
6671 mgd 33 0 95508 22m 3652 R 100 0.7 44:28.11 perl
6669 mgd 31 0 95176 22m 3652 R 50 0.7 43:50.02 perl
6674
mgd 31 0 95368 22m 3652 R 50 0.7 47:55.29 perl
cfs-v5
top - 08:07:50 up 21 min, 9 users, load average: 4.13, 4.16, 3.23
Tasks: 3 total, 3 running, 0 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 99.5%us, 0.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.3%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 3348624k total, 1193500k used, 2155124k free, 32516k buffers
Swap: 2097144k total, 0k used, 2097144k free, 545568k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
6357 mgd 20 0 92024 19m 3652 R 100 0.6 8:54.21 perl
6356 mgd 20 0 91652 18m 3652 R 50 0.6 10:35.52 perl
6359 mgd 20 0 91700 18m 3652 R 50 0.6 8:47.32 perl
What did surprise me is that cpu utilization had been spread 100/50/50
(round robin) most of the time. I did expect 66/66/66 or so.
What I also don't understand is the difference in load average, sd
constantly had higher values, the above figures are representative
for the whole log. I don't know which is better though.
Here are excerpts from a concurrently run vmstat 3 200:
sd-0.46
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa
5 0 0 1702928 63664 827876 0 0 0 67 458 1350 100 0 0 0
3 0 0 1702928 63684 827876 0 0 0 89 468 1362 100 0 0 0
5 0 0 1702680 63696 827876 0 0 0 132 461 1598 99 1 0 0
8 0 0 1702680 63712 827892 0 0 0 80 465 1180 99 1 0 0
3 0 0 1702712 63732 827884 0 0 0 67 453 1005 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 1702792 63744 827920 0 0 0 41 461 1138 100 0 0 0
3 0 0 1702792 63760 827916 0 0 0 57 456 1073 100 0 0 0
3 0 0 1702808 63776 827928 0 0 0 111 473 1095 100 0 0 0
3 0 0 1702808 63788 827928 0 0 0 81 461 1092 99 1 0 0
3 0 0 1702188 63808 827928 0 0 0 160 463 1437 99 1 0 0
3 0 0 1702064 63884 827900 0 0 0 229 479 1125 99 0 0 0
4 0 0 1702064 63912 827972 0 0 1 77 460 1108 100 0 0 0
7 0 0 1702032 63920 828000 0 0 0 40 463 1068 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 1702048 63928 828008 0 0 0 68 454 1114 100 0 0 0
11 0 0 1702048 63928 828008 0 0 0 0 458 1001 100 0 0 0
3 0 0 1701500 63960 828020 0 0 0 189 470 1538 99 1 0 0
3 0 0 1701476 63968 828020 0 0 0 57 461 1111 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 1701508 63996 828044 0 0 0 105 458 1093 99 1 0 0
4 0 0 1701428 64012 828044 0 0 0 127 471 1341 100 0 0 0
5 0 0 1701356 64028 828040 0 0 0 55 458 1344 100 0 0 0
3 0 0 1701356 64028 828056 0 0 0 15 462 1291 100 0 0 0
cfs-v5
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa
6 0 0 2157728 31816 545236 0 0 0 103 543 748 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 2157780 31828 545256 0 0 0 63 435 752 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 2157928 31852 545256 0 0 0 105 424 770 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 2157928 31868 545268 0 0 0 261 457 763 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 2157928 31884 545280 0 0 0 113 435 765 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 2157928 31900 545288 0 0 0 52 422 745 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 2157556 31932 545284 0 0 0 169 436 1010 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 2157556 31952 545296 0 0 0 72 424 736 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 2157556 31960 545304 0 0 0 35 428 743 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 2157556 31984 545308 0 0 0 91 425 710 99 1 0 0
4 0 0 2157556 31992 545320 0 0 0 35 428 738 100 0 0 0
5 0 0 2157556 32016 545320 0 0 0 105 425 729 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 2157432 32052 545336 0 0 0 197 434 989 99 1 0 0
5 0 0 2157448 32060 545352 0 0 0 36 421 767 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 2157448 32076 545356 0 0 0 127 441 752 100 0 0 0
6 0 0 2157448 32092 545368 0 0 0 69 422 784 99 1 0 0
4 0 0 2157324 32116 545388 0 0 0 191 445 734 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 2157200 32148 545400 0 0 0 123 427 773 100 0 0 0
4 0 0 2157200 32156 545412 0 0 0 39 428 713 100 0 0 0
7 0 0 2156844 32184 545412 0 0 1 161 429 1360 99 1 0 0
6 0 0 2156348 32192 545416 0 0 0 32 427 723 100 0 0 0
Last not least I'd like to add that at least on my system having X
niced to -19 does result in kind of "erratic" (for lack of a better
word) desktop behavior. I'll will reevaluate this with -v6 but for
now IMO nicing X to -19 is a regression at least on my machine despite
the claim that cfs doesn't suffer from it.
Best,
Michael
PS: Only learning how to test these things I'm happy to get pointed
out the shortcomings of what I tested above. Of course suggestions for
improvements are welcome.
--
Technosis GmbH, Geschäftsführer: Michael Gerdau, Tobias Dittmar
Sitz Hamburg; HRB 89145 Amtsgericht Hamburg
Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/
Michael Gerdau email: mgd@...hnosis.de
GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists