linux-kernel - Re: Are Linux pipes slower than the FreeBSD ones ?

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: <47CFDF55.6030103@yandex.ru>
Date:	Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:11:01 +0300
From:	Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@...dex.ru>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Are Linux pipes slower than the FreeBSD ones ?

Nick Piggin wrote:

> One thing to try is pinning both processes on the same CPU. This
> may be what the FreeBSD scheduler is preferring to do, and it ends
> up being really a tradeoff that helps some workloads and hurts
> others. With a very unscientific test with an old kernel, the
> pipe.c test gets anywhere from about 1.5 to 3 times faster when
> running it as taskset 1 ./pipe

Sounds interesting. What kernel version did you tried? Can you
send your .config to me?

I've tried this trick on 2.6.25-rc4, and got ~20% more throughput for
large (> 8K) buffers at the cost of going ~30% down for the small ones.

Dmitry
--
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/