linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #11308] tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28

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]

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 -&gt; 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/