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: <4AA64052.4020509@arcor.de>
Date:	Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:30:26 +0300
From:	Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@...or.de>
To:	tfjellstrom@...w.ca
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

On 09/08/2009 02:54 AM, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> On Sun September 6 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>  [...]
>> For reference, my system is:
>>
>> CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4GHz)
>> Mainboard: Asus P5E (Intel X38 chipset)
>> RAM: 6GB (2+2+1+1) dual channel DDR2 800
>> GPU: RV770 (Radeon HD4870).
>>
>
> My Phenom 9550 (2.2Ghz) whips the pants off my Intel Q6600 (2.6Ghz). I and a
> friend of mine both get large amounts of stalling when doing a lot of IO. I
> haven't seen such horrible desktop interactivity since before the new
> schedulers and the -ck patchset came out for 2.4.x. Its a heck of a lot better
> on my AMD Phenom's, but some lag is noticeable these days, even when it wasn't
> a few kernel releases ago.

It seems someone tried BFS on quite slower hardware: Android.  According 
to the feedback, the device is much more responsive with BFS: 
http://twitter.com/cyanogen
--
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/