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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070917202259.GA18027@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:22:59 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Ed Tomlinson <edt@....ca>
Cc:	Rob Hussey <robjhussey@...il.com>, efault@....de,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, zippel@...ux-m68k.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ck@....kolivas.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

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

> Rob,
> 
> 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.

yeah. The biggest item in -ck besides SD is swap-prefetch, but that 
shouldnt have an effect in this case. I _think_ that most of the 
measured difference is due to scheduler details though. Right now my 
estimation is that with the patch i sent to Rob, and with latest 
sched-devel.git, CFS should perform as good or better than SD, even in 
these micro-benchmarks. (but i cannot tell what will happen on Rob's 
machine - so i'm keeping an open mind towards any other fixables :-) I'm 
curious about the next round of numbers (if Rob has time to do them).

	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/