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  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]
Date:	Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:40:14 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <>
To:	Jie Chen <>
Cc:	Simon Holm Th??gersen <>,
	Eric Dumazet <>,,
	Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4

* Jie Chen <> wrote:

> I just ran the same test on two 2.6.24-rc4 kernels: one with 
> off. The odd behavior I described in my previous e-mails were still 
> there for both kernels. Let me know If I can be any more help. Thank 
> you.

ok, i had a look at your data, and i think this is the result of the 
scheduler balancing out to idle CPUs more agressively than before. Doing 
that is almost always a good idea though - but indeed it can result in 
"bad" numbers if all you do is to measure the ping-pong "performance" 
between two threads. (with no real work done by any of them).

the moment you saturate the system a bit more, the numbers should 
improve even with such a ping-pong test.

do you have testcode (or a modification of your testcase sourcecode) 
that simulates a real-life situation where 2.6.24-rc4 performs not as 
well as you'd like it to see? (or if qmt.tar.gz already contains that 
then please point me towards that portion of the test and how i should 
run it - thanks!)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists