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: <20090907074039.1b6bc1ac@infradead.org>
Date:	Mon, 7 Sep 2009 07:40:39 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@...or.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:38:36 +0300
Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@...or.de> wrote:

> On 09/06/2009 11:59 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >[...]
> > Also, i'd like to outline that i agree with the general goals
> > described by you in the BFS announcement - small desktop systems
> > matter more than large systems. We find it critically important
> > that the mainline Linux scheduler performs well on those systems
> > too - and if you (or anyone else) can reproduce suboptimal behavior
> > please let the scheduler folks know so that we can fix/improve it.
> 
> BFS improved behavior of many applications on my Intel Core 2 box in
> a way that can't be benchmarked.  Examples:

Have you tried to see if latencytop catches such latencies ?
--
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/