linux-kernel - Re: scale sysctl_sched_shares_ratelimit with nr

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: <20080818070147.GA4801@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:01:47 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin.zhang@...el.com>
Cc:	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: scale sysctl_sched_shares_ratelimit with nr_cpus


* Zhang, Yanmin <yanmin.zhang@...el.com> wrote:

> >>cool. It's already upstream (post-rc3 commit):
> [YM] But comparing with 2.6.26, volanoMark result still has about 60%
> regression.

Does a scheduler trace show anything about why that drop happens? Do 
something like this to trace the scheduler:

assuming debugfs is mounted under /debug and CONFIG_SCHED_TRACER=y:

  echo 1 > /debug/tracing/tracing_cpumask
  echo sched_switch > /debug/tracing/available_tracers
  cat /debug/tracing/trace_pipe > trace.txt

( regarding tracing_cpumask: trace only 1 CPU to make sure volanomark is 
  not disturbed too much by many-CPUs tracing. )

	Ingo
--
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/