linux-kernel - Re: Scheduler(?) regression from 2.6.22 to 2.6.24 for short-lived threads

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: <20080209003220.GA21395@lixom.net>
Date:	Fri, 8 Feb 2008 18:32:20 -0600
From:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: Scheduler(?) regression from 2.6.22 to 2.6.24 for short-lived
	threads

On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 01:08:30AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote:
> 
> > 2.6.22: 3332 ms
> > 2.6.23: 4397 ms
> > 2.6.24: 8953 ms
> > 2.6.24-git19: 8986 ms
> 
> if you enable SCHED_DEBUG, and subtract 4 from the value of 
> /proc/sys/kernel/sched_features, does it get any better?
> 
> if not, does writing 0 into /proc/sys/kernel/sched_features have any 
> impact?

Doesn't seem to make a difference, either of them. I can unfortunately
not retest on x86 at the moment, only powerpc. But it made no noticable
difference in runtime w/ pasemi_defconfig and current mainline.


-Olof
--
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/