linux-kernel - Re: [quad core results] 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: <1252337069.31087.17.camel@skunk>
Date:	Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:24:29 +0200
From:	Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@...e.fr>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	Markus Tornqvist <mjt@...v.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, kernel@...ivas.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, efault@....de
Subject: Re: [quad core results] BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and
	measurements


On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 07:45 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:41:51 +0300
> > >It shows similar curves and behavior to the 8-core results i posted 
> > >- BFS is slower than mainline in virtually every measurement. The 
> > >ratios are different for different parts of the graphs - but the 
> > >trend is similar.
> > 
> > Dude, not cool.
> > 
> > 1. Quad HT is not the same as a 4-core desktop, you're doing it with
> > 8 cores 
> 
> 4 cores, 8 threads. Which is basically the standard desktop cpu going
> forward... (4 cores already is today, 8 threads is that any day now)

Except on your typical smartphone, which will run linux and probably
vastly outnumber the number of "traditional" linux desktops.

	Xav



--
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/