linux-kernel - Re: Performance loss 2.6.22->22.6.23->2.6.24-rc7 on CPU intensive benchmark on 8 Core Xeon

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: <cf3edd8d0801160934u2e39110dv2ccc98081e983b25@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:34:22 +0000
From:	"Colin Fowler" <elethiomel@...il.com>
To:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: Performance loss 2.6.22->22.6.23->2.6.24-rc7 on CPU intensive benchmark on 8 Core Xeon

> there are a handful of 'scheduler feature bits' in
> /proc/sys/kernel/sched_features:
>
> enum {
>         SCHED_FEAT_NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS    = 1,
>         SCHED_FEAT_WAKEUP_PREEMPT       = 2,
>         SCHED_FEAT_START_DEBIT          = 4,
>         SCHED_FEAT_TREE_AVG             = 8,
>         SCHED_FEAT_APPROX_AVG           = 16,
> };
>

Toggling SCHED_FEAT_NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS to 0 or
SCHED_FEAT_WAKEUP_PREEMPT to 0 gives me results more inline with my
2.6.22 results. Toggling them both to 0 gives me slightly better
results than 2.6.22!

>   /sys/devices/system/cpu/sched_mc_power_savings
>
> does that change the results?
>

no measurable difference on this toggle that I can see.
--
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/