linux-kernel - Re: CFS not suitable for desktop computers

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49FF06D0.80109@nico22.de>
Date:	Mon, 04 May 2009 17:16:32 +0200
From:	Nico Schümann <spam@...o22.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: CFS not suitable for desktop computers

Thank you Ray Lee and Mike Galbraith for your responses, I ran the 
script and attached its gathered information.

Mike Galbraith wrote:
> How hard is hard?  Can you describe the loads you're having trouble
> with, and the hardware you're running them on?
>
>   
I could reproduce "hard" load by just compiling the linux kernel, make 
-j3 while reading mails with Thunderbird, which is not that hard 
foreground load. Thunderbird starts reacting really slowly while compiling.

My system has a 1,3 GHz AMD Athlon CPU (32 bits) and 1 GB of RAM. Now 
you will say: That is not very much. Of course it is not, but with the 
old scheduler, the system felt way faster, so it seemed to be enough for 
compiling and reading mails.
I hope you can find useful information in the attached log, I enabled 
SCHED_DEBUG and SCHEDSTATS, if you need any more information, just ask 
me, I will try to answer.

And thank you all for your help,

Nico Schümann

Download attachment "cfs-debug-info-2009.05.04-17.04.35.gz" of type "application/x-gzip" (63145 bytes)