| 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: <20070521093958.GI19966@holomorphy.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 02:39:58 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com> To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com> Cc: Linux Kernel mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Scheduling tests on IPC methods, fc6, sd0.48, cfs12 On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 07:26:38PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote: > I have posted the results of my initial testing, measuring IPC rates > using various schedulers under no load, limited nice load, and heavy > load at nice 0. > http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/ctxbench_testing.html Kernel compiles are not how to stress these. The way to stress them is to have multiple simultaneous independent chains of communicators and deeper chains of communicators. Kernel compiles are little but background cpu/memory load for these sorts of tests. Something expected to have some sort of mutual interference depending on quality of implementation would be a better sort of competing load, one vastly more reflective of real workloads. For instance, another set of processes communicating using the same primitive. Perhaps best of all would be a macrobenchmark utilizing a variety of the primitives under consideration. Unsurprisingly, major commercial databases do so for major benchmarks. -- wli - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists