linux-kernel - Re: Scheduler behaviour

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]

Date:	Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:21:55 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Holger.Wolf@...ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler behaviour


* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:

> > We discovered performance degradation with dbench when using kernel 
> > 2.6.23 compared to kernel 2.6.22.
> 
> We've fixed a lot of regressions and made a lot of other changes to 
> the scheduler since .23. Could you please try the backport of the 
> latest scheduler on top of .23 to see if any of our recent work solved 
> your problem? (using a backport against .23 or even .22 allows you to 
> test just the scheduler changes in isolation)

actually, i'd suggest to use the CFS backport against .22 right away:

> http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/sched-cfs-v2.6.22.13-v24.patch

that would exclude all other changes that happened in 2.6.23.

	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/