linux-kernel - Re: Scheduler benchmarks

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: <20070917114714.GA32532@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:47:14 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Ed Tomlinson <edt@....ca>
Cc:	Rob Hussey <robjhussey@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ck@....kolivas.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up


* Ed Tomlinson <edt@....ca> wrote:

> I gather this was with the complete -ck patchset?  It would be 
> interesting to see if just SD performed as well.  If it does, CFS 
> needs more work. if not there are other things in -ck that really do 
> improve performance and should be looked into.

also see:

   http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/17/172

i think at least part of the differences is due to the different 
sched_clock() accuracy and performance in v2.6.22-ck versus v2.6.23-cfs.

	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/