linux-kernel - Re: Network slowdown due to 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: <20070927144228.GC2431@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:42:28 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	David Schwartz <davids@...master.com>,
	"Linux-Kernel\@Vger\. Kernel\. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Martin Michlmayr <tbm@...ius.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Network slowdown due to CFS

On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 03:31:23PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> wrote:
...
> > OK, but let's forget about fixing iperf. Probably I got this wrong, 
> > but I've thought this "bad" iperf patch was tested on a few nixes and 
> > linux was the most different one. The main point is: even if there is 
> > no standard here, it should be a common interest to try to not differ 
> > too much at least. So, it's not about exactness, but 50% (63 -> 95) 
> > change in linux own 'definition' after upgrading seems to be a lot. 
> > So, IMHO, maybe some 'compatibility' test could be prepared to compare 
> > a few different ideas on this yield and some average value could be a 
> > kind of at least linux' own standard, which should be emulated within 
> > some limits by next kernels?
> 
> you repeat your point of "emulating yield", and i can only repeat my 
> point that you should please read this:
> 
>     http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/19/357
> 
> because, once you read that, i think you'll agree with me that what you 
> say is simply not possible in a sane way at this stage. We went through 
> a number of yield implementations already and each will change behavior 
> for _some_ category of apps. So right now we offer two implementations, 
> and the default was chosen empirically to minimize the amount of 
> complaints. (but it's not possible to eliminate them altogether, for the 
> reasons outlined above - hence the switch.)

Sorry, but I think you got me wrong: I didn't mean emulation of any
implementation, but probably the some thing you write above: emulation
of time/performance. In my opinion this should be done experimentally
too, but with something more objective and constant than current
"complaints counter". And the first thing could be a try to set some
kind of linux internal "standard of yeld" for the future by averaging
a few most popular systems in a test doing things like this iperf or
preferably more.

Jarek P.
-
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/