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: <20090907083642.5e2b575c@infradead.org>
Date:	Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:36:42 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
Cc:	Markus Tornqvist <mjt@...v.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	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, 7 Sep 2009 17:20:33 +0200
Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl> wrote:

> On Monday 07 September 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > 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)
> 
> Despite that I'm personally more interested in what I have available
> here *now*. And that's various UP Pentium systems, one dual core
> Pentium D and Core Duo.
> 
> I've been running BFS on my laptop today while doing CPU intensive
> jobs (not disk intensive), and I must say that BFS does seem very
> responsive. OTOH, I've also noticed some surprising things, such as
> processors staying on lower frequencies while doing CPU-intensive
> work.
> 
> I feels like I have less of the mouse cursor and typing freezes I'm
> used to with CFS, even when I'm *not* doing anything special. I've
> been blaming those on still running with ordered mode ext3, but now
> I'm starting to wonder.
> 
> I'll try to do more structured testing, comparisons and measurements 
> later. At the very least it's nice to have something to compare
> _with_.
> 

it's a shameless plug since I wrote it, but latencytop will be able to
tell you what your bottleneck is...
and that is very interesting to know, regardless of the "what scheduler
code" discussion;

-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/