linux-kernel - volanoMark regression with kernel 2.6.26-rc1

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 06 May 2008 10:06:30 +0800
From:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: volanoMark regression with kernel 2.6.26-rc1

Comparing with 2.6.25, volanoMark has big regression with kernel 2.6.26-rc1.
It's about 50% on my 8-core stoakley, 16-core tigerton, and Itanium Montecito.

With bisect, I located below patch.

18d95a2832c1392a2d63227a7a6d433cb9f2037e is first bad commit
commit 18d95a2832c1392a2d63227a7a6d433cb9f2037e
Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Date:   Sat Apr 19 19:45:00 2008 +0200

    sched: fair-group: SMP-nice for group scheduling

    Implement SMP nice support for the full group hierarchy.

If I reverse the patch with resolving some conflictions, volanoMark result could
be restored completely.

AIM7 (use tmpfs) also has more than 40% on my 8-core stoakley, 16-core tigerton,
and Itanium Montecito, but I verified that aim7 regression isn't caused by above
patch. I am doing new bisect to check aim7 now.

-yanmin

--
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/