linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Help Resource Counters Scale better (v4.1)

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:	Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:53:15 -0400
From:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp,
	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, menage@...gle.com,
	andi.kleen@...el.com, xemul@...nvz.org, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Help Resource Counters Scale better (v4.1)



Balbir Singh wrote:
> Hi, Andrew,
>
> Does this look better, could you please replace the older patch with
> this one.
>
> 1. I did a quick compile test
> 2. Ran scripts/checkpatch.pl
>
>
>   

Andi Kleen suggested I use kernbench to profile the kernel.

2.6.31-rc5-git2 w/ CONFIG_RESOURCE_COUNTERS on

Tue Aug 11 13:45:14 EDT 2009
2.6.31-rc5-git2-resources
Average Half load -j 32 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 622.588 (119.243)
User Time 4820.8 (962.286)
System Time 9807.63 (2669.55)
Percent CPU 2324 (167.236)
Context Switches 2009606 (368703)
Sleeps 1.24949e+06 (118210)

Average Optimal load -j 256 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 770.97 (90.8685)
User Time 5068.42 (750.933)
System Time 21499.8 (12822.3)
Percent CPU 3660 (1425.28)
Context Switches 2.86467e+06 (971764)
Sleeps 1.32784e+06 (129048)

Average Maximal load -j Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 757.018 (22.8371)
User Time 4958.85 (644.65)
System Time 24916.5 (11454.3)
Percent CPU 4046.93 (1279.6)
Context Switches 3.04894e+06 (826687)
Sleeps 1.26053e+06 (146073)


2.6.31-rc5-git2 w/ CONFIG_RESOURCE_COUNTERS off

Tue Aug 11 17:58:58 EDT 2009
2.6.31-rc5-git2-no-resources
Average Half load -j 32 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 280.176 (21.1131)
User Time 3558.51 (389.488)
System Time 2393.87 (142.692)
Percent CPU 2122.6 (50.5104)
Context Switches 1.20474e+06 (131112)
Sleeps 1062507 (59366.3)

Average Optimal load -j 256 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 223.192 (42.7007)
User Time 4243.19 (967.575)
System Time 2649.57 (344.462)
Percent CPU 2845.5 (856.217)
Context Switches 1.52187e+06 (391821)
Sleeps 1.28862e+06 (274222)

Average Maximal load -j Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 216.942 (45.4824)
User Time 3860.46 (966.452)
System Time 2782.17 (344.154)
Percent CPU 2862.47 (720.904)
Context Switches 1.43379e+06 (341021)
Sleeps 1184325 (269392)

2.6.31-rc5-git2 w/ CONFIG_RESOURCE_COUNTERS on + patch

Tue Aug 11 20:58:31 EDT 2009
2.6.31-rc5-git2-mem-patch
Average Half load -j 32 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 285.788 (18.577)
User Time 3483.14 (346.56)
System Time 2426.37 (132.015)
Percent CPU 2066.8 (80.3754)
Context Switches 1.16588e+06 (134701)
Sleeps 1048810 (59891.2)

Average Optimal load -j 256 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 239.81 (14.0759)
User Time 3797.7 (422.118)
System Time 2622.74 (225.361)
Percent CPU 2480.9 (446.735)
Context Switches 1.37301e+06 (238886)
Sleeps 1195957 (161659)

Average Maximal load -j Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 203.884 (8.59151)
User Time 3578.02 (482.79)
System Time 2759.9 (273.03)
Percent CPU 2663.53 (450.476)
Context Switches 1.33907e+06 (199658)
Sleeps 1119205 (172089)


... The odd thing is that the run with the patch is still less than the 
run with CONFIG_RESOURCE_COUNTERS off.  It was so odd that I double 
checked that I actually built in RESOURCE_COUNTERS and had applied the 
patch, both of which I had done.

P.
--
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/