linux-kernel - Re: call for more SD versus CFS comparisons (was: Re: [ck] Mainline plans)

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]

Message-ID: <4673026F.8070406@debianpt.org>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:19:43 +0100
From:	Miguel Figueiredo <elmig@...ianpt.org>
To:	Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de>
CC:	ck@....kolivas.org,
	linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: call for more SD versus CFS comparisons (was: Re: [ck] Mainline
 plans)

Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Dienstag 12 Juni 2007 schrieb Miguel Figueiredo:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> some results based on massing_intr.c by Satoru, can be found on
>> http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/tools/massive_intr.c
> 
> Hi Miquel, Ingo, Con!
> 
[...]

> Any suggestions?

I read somewhere in the list that X itself makes lots of hocus pocus
that affect the behavior of programs running inside X itself (i even
read about X's own scheduling - someone can confirm/deny it? - and evil
behavior on drivers).

If we look/test a fair/responsive scheduler isn't better to test it
outside X?
IMHO, X itself, it's too complex and may obscure our tests on
fairness/interactivity.

Anyone knows any good tests for interctivity?

[...]

-- 

Com os melhores cumprimentos/Best regards,

Miguel Figueiredo
http://www.DebianPT.org
-
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/