linux-kernel - Re: Sched - graphic smoothness under load

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: <2c0942db0705192330r4004d7bem3556c939c1581553@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 19 May 2007 23:30:17 -0700
From:	"Ray Lee" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
To:	"Michael Gerdau" <mgd@...hnosis.de>
Cc:	"Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@....com>,
	"Linux Kernel M/L" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Sched - graphic smoothness under load - cfs-v13 sd-0.48

On 5/19/07, Michael Gerdau <mgd@...hnosis.de> wrote:
> > Okay, here's a bonus, http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/sched_smooth_02.html
> > not only has the right values, the labels are changed, and I included
> > more data points from the fc6 recent kernel and the 2.6.21.1 kernel with
> > the mainline scheduler.
> >
> > The nice thing about this test and the IPC test I posted recently is
> > that they are reasonable stable on the same hardware, so even if someone
> > argues about what they show, they show the same thing each time and can
> > therefore be used to compare changes.
>
> I'm not sure I follow you here. The difference between 2.6.21 and 2.6.21.1
> are two simple (as in involving little code) changes to ip4 and ip6 net
> and I'm not even sure that code is used at all in your tests.
> [Read: IMO the 2.6.21 and 2.6.21.1 figures are for identical cases].
>
> Assuming the above is correct then IMO the variance between the two
> "dublicated" lines (cfs-v13 and sd048) is such that I would not have
> written "that they are reasonable stable on the same hardware".
>
> I don't want to say the values aren't useful. I simply think there is
> a high noiselevel.

The noise is reflected in the standard deviation he has on those rows.
The average +- stdev  of one overlaps the average +- stdev of the
other, which shows that the test *is* stable, where stable (as always)
is defined to some accuracy.
-
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/