| 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: <20081118084541.GJ17838@elte.hu> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:45:41 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: dada1@...mosbay.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, rjw@...k.pl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org, efault@....de, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, shemminger@...tta.com Subject: Re: [Bug #11308] tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28 * David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> > Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:15:50 +0100 > > > Yes, I mentioned it later. But apparently you dont read my mails, > > so I will just stop now. > > Yeah I was going to mention this too :-/ I spent hours profiling the networking code, and no, i didnt read all the incoming emails in parallel - i read them after that. I have established it beyond reasonable doubt that the scheduler is doing the right thing with the config i've posted. Your "wakeup is two orders of magnitude more expensive" claim, which got me to measure and profile this stuff, is not reproducible here and this regression should not be listed as a scheduler regression. 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