linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE/RFC] Really Fair Scheduler

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: <20070902192152.GA29757@elte.hu>
Date:	Sun, 2 Sep 2007 21:21:52 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE/RFC] Really Fair Scheduler


* Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:

> > > > so unmodified CFS is 4.6% faster on this box than with Roman's 
> > > > patch and it's also more consistent/stable (10 times lower 
> > > > fluctuations).
> > > 
> > > Was SCHED_DEBUG enabled or disabled for these runs?
> > 
> > debugging disabled of course. (your patch has a self-validity 
> > checking function [verify_queue()] that is called on SCHED_DEBUG=y, 
> > it would have been unfair to test your patch with that included.)
> 
> I'll look into it next week.

thanks. FYI, there's plenty of time - i'll be at the KS next week so 
i'll be quite unresponsive to emails. Would be nice if you could take a 
quick look at the trivial patch i posted today though. How close is it 
to your algorithm, have i missed any important details? (not counting 
nice levels and rounding, it's just a quick & dirty prototype to show 
the first layer of the core math and nothing more.)

	Ingo
-
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/