linux-kernel - Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v19

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

Message-Id: <200707082351.56694.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date:	Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:51:56 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v19

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> The biggest user-visible change in -v19 is reworked sleeper fairness:
> it's similar in behavior to -v18 but works more consistently across nice
> levels. Fork-happy workloads (like kernel builds) should behave better
> as well. There are also a handful of speedups: unsigned math, 32-bit
> speedups, O(1) task pickup, debloating and other micro-optimizations.

Thanks, these changes show an obvious improvement with heavy forklifters.  
But there is one strange artifact; fork response is not consistant over 
successive runs, i.e. sometimes it starves, sometimes it moves, and 
sometimes it flies.  It looks like it's dependent on some sched-stats to 
accumulate before it stablizes.

Also, fork/thread creation is one aspect of testing, but what about thread 
termination performance, which has to sync back to the creating thread?  How 
is that handled, and is there some code around that can test this?

Thanks!

--
Al

-
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/