linux-kernel - Re: Volanomark slows by 80% under CFS

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: <20070728005920.GA31622@v2.random>
Date:	Sat, 28 Jul 2007 02:59:20 +0200
From:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>
To:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
Cc:	tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Volanomark slows by 80% under CFS

On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 08:31:19PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> I think Volanomark is being pretty stupid, and deserves to run slowly, but 

Indeed, any app doing what volanomark does is pretty inefficient.

But this is not the point. I/O schedulers are pluggable to help for
inefficient apps too. If apps would be extremely smart they would all
use async-io for their reads, and there wouldn't be the need of
anticipatory scheduler just for an example.

The fact is there's no technical explanation for which we're forbidden
to be able to choose between CFS and O(1) at least at boot time.
-
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/