| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 08:58:39 +0100 From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> To: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Subject: Re: Scheduler(?) regression from 2.6.22 to 2.6.24 for short-lived threads On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 18:04 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote: > Hi, > > I ended up with a customer benchmark in my lap this week that doesn't > do well on recent kernels. :( > > After cutting it down to a simple testcase/microbenchmark, it seems like > recent kernels don't do as well with short-lived threads competing > with the thread it's cloned off of. The CFS scheduler changes come to > mind, but I suppose it could be caused by something else as well. > > The pared-down testcase is included below. Reported runtime for the > testcase has increased almost 3x between 2.6.22 and 2.6.24: > > 2.6.22: 3332 ms > 2.6.23: 4397 ms > 2.6.24: 8953 ms > 2.6.24-git19: 8986 ms My 3GHz P4 shows disjointed results. 2.6.22.17-smp time 798 ms time 780 ms time 702 ms 2.6.22.17-cfs-v24.1-smp time 562 ms time 551 ms time 551 ms 2.6.23.15-smp time 254 ms time 254 ms time 293 ms 2.6.23.15-cfs-v24-smp time 764 ms time 791 ms time 780 ms 2.6.24.1-smp time 815 ms time 820 ms time 771 ms 2.6.25-smp (git today) time 29 ms time 61 ms time 72 ms -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists