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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <h82ma1$h9f$1@ger.gmane.org>
Date:	Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:12:15 +0300
From:	Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@...or.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject:  Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

On 09/07/2009 12:49 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> [...]
> And I have to apologize for using a large system to test this on, I
> realize it's out of the scope of BFS, but it's just easier to fire one
> of these beasts up than it is to sacrifice my notebook or desktop
> machine...

How does a kernel rebuild constitute "sacrifice"?


> So it's a 64 thread box. CFS -jX runtime is the baseline at
> 100, lower number means faster and vice versa. The latency numbers are
> in msecs.
>
>
> Scheduler       Runtime         Max lat     Avg lat     Std dev
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> CFS             100             951         462         267
> CFS-x2          100             983         484         308
> BFS
> BFS-x2
>
> And unfortunately this is where it ends for now, since BFS doesn't boot
> on the two boxes I tried.

Then who post this in the first place?

--
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/