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]

Message-ID: <20071205132631.79940bd5@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:26:31 -0800
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Holger.Wolf@...ibm.com
Cc:	wolf@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler behaviour

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:15:30 +0100
Holger Wolf <wolf@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> We discovered performance degradation with dbench when using kernel
> 2.6.23 compared to kernel 2.6.22.
> 
> In our case we booted a Linux in a IBM System z9 LPAR with 256MB of
> ram with 4 CPU's. This system uses a striped LV with 16 disks on a
> Storage Server connected via 8 4GBit links.
> A dbench was started on that system performing I/O operations on the
> striped LV. dbench runs were performed with 1 to 62 processes.
> Measurements with a 2.6.22 kernel were compared to measurements with
> a 2.6.23 kernel. We saw a throughput degradation from 7.2 to 23.4

this is good news!
dbench rewards unfair behavior... so higher dbench usually means a
worse kernel ;)


-- 
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/