| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4AA62E4E.4040700@arcor.de>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:13:34 +0300
From: Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@...or.de>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
On 09/08/2009 11:38 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:19:06 +0300
> Nikos Chantziaras<realnc@...or.de> wrote:
>
>> latencytop has this to say:
>>
>> http://foss.math.aegean.gr/~realnc/pics/latop1.png
>>
>> Though I don't really understand what this tool is trying to tell me,
>> I hope someone does.
>
> despite the untranslated content, it is clear that you have scheduler
> delays (either due to scheduler bugs or cpu contention) of upto 68
> msecs... Second in line is your binary AMD graphics driver that is
> chewing up 14% of your total latency...
I've now used a correctly installed and up-to-date version of latencytop
and repeated the test. Also, I got rid of AMD's binary blob and used
kernel DRM drivers for my graphics card to throw fglrx out of the
equation (which btw didn't help; the exact same problems occur).
Here the result:
http://foss.math.aegean.gr/~realnc/pics/latop2.png
Again: this is on an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists