| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <47B21D13.5060700@hp.com> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:26:27 -0500 From: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@...com> To: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@...com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, npiggin@...e.de, dgc@....com, arjan@...ux.intel.com Subject: Re: IO queueing and complete affinity w/ threads: Some results Alan D. Brunelle wrote: > > Hopefully, the first column is self-explanatory - these are the settings applied to the queue_affinity, completion_affinity and rq_affinity tunables. Due to the fact that the standard deviations are so large coupled with the very close average results, I'm not seeing anything in this set of tests to favor any of the combinations... > Note quite: Q or C = 0 really means Q or C set to -1 (default), Q or C = 1 means placing that thread on the CPU managing the IRQ. Sorry... <sigh> Alan -- 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