| 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: <47C4494C.1090600@siemens.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:15:56 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: Re: 2.6.24.2-rt2 Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> What's the NUMA topology? >> 4 nodes. I'm not sure if it is really NUMA related, but the same kernel >> runs that test as expected on a non-NUMA 2x2 box. >> >>> What tasks are running, and at what priorities? >> 40 pthreads, created with default parameters from a main thread which >> runs with default parameters as well. The threads simply run endless loops. >> >>> Those three idle CPUS, should they have tasks running on them? >> For sure, given the overload situation of the system (40x full load vs. >> 16 cores). Neither did we fiddle with any parameter of the system >> (knowingly, its a standard openSUSE 10.3 underneath) nor did we set >> thread affinities. >> > > Do you get different behaviour with 2.6.24.2? Last time I checked mainline (I think 2.6.24), it was fine. It was definitely fine for 2.6.23. But I'm going to revalidate this once the machine is free again (tomorrow). Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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