| 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: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:44:00 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote: >> Yeah - it was Jeremy expressed doubt in the numbers, not me. > > Mainly because I was seeing the instruction and cycle counts > completely unchanged from run to run, which is implausible. > They're not zero, so they're clearly measurements of > *something*, but not cycles and instructions, since we know > that they're changing. So what are they measurements of? And > if they're not what they claim, are the other numbers more > meaningful? cycle count not changing in a macro-workload is not plausible. Instruction count not changing can happen sometimes - if the workload is deterministic (which this one is) and we happen to get exactly the same number of timer irqs during the test. But it's more common that it varies slightly - especially on SMP where task balancing can be timing-dependent and hence is noise. 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