| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:47:51 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: dada1@...mosbay.com, rjw@...k.pl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org, efault@....de, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [Bug #11308] tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28 * David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> > Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:11:35 +0100 > > > Ouch, +4% from a oneliner networking change? That's a _huge_ speedup > > compared to the things we were after in scheduler land. > > The scheduler has accounted for at least %10 of the tbench > regressions at this point, what are you talking about? yeah, you are probably right when it comes to task migration policy impact - that can have effects in that range. (and that, you have to accept, is a fundamentally hard and fragile job to get right, as it involves observing the past and predicting the future out of it - at 1.3 million events per second) So above i was just talking about straight scheduling code overhead. (that cannot have been +10% of the total - as the whole scheduler only takes 7% total - TLB flush and FPU restore overhead included. Even the hrtimer bits were about 1% of the total.) 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists