linux-kernel - Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 7 Sep 2009 04:05:22 +0200
From:	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	kernel@...ivas.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, efault@....de
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So the testbox i picked fits into the upper portion of what i
> consider a sane range of systems to tune for - and should still fit
> into BFS's design bracket as well according to your description:
> it's a dual quad core system with hyperthreading.

Ingo,

Nice that you've looked into this.

Would it be possible for you to run the same tests on e.g. a dual core 
and/or a UP system (or maybe just offline some CPUs?)? It would be very 
interesting to see whether BFS does better in the lower portion of the 
range, or if the differences you show between the two schedulers are 
consistent across the range.

Cheers,
FJP
--
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/