linux-kernel - Re: Scheduling tests on IPC methods, fc6, sd0.48, cfs12

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 22 May 2007 18:36:30 -0400
From:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Linux Kernel mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject:  Re: Scheduling tests on IPC methods, fc6, sd0.48, cfs12

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> 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.

Just so. What is being quantified is the rate of slowdown due to 
external load. I would hope that each IPC method would slow by some 
similar factor.

>                 ...  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.
> 
The original intent was purely to measure IPC speed under no load 
conditions, since fairness is in vogue I also attempted to look for 
surprising behavior. Corresponding values under equal load may be useful 
in relation to one another, but this isn't (and hopefully doesn't claim 
to be) a benchmark. It may or may not be useful viewed in that light, 
but that's not the target.

> 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.
> 
And that's a very good point, either multiple copies or more forked 
processes might be useful, and I do intend to add threaded tests on the 
next upgrade, but perhaps a whole new code might be better for 
generating the load you suggest.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot

-
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/