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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090910100148.GF18599@kernel.dk>
Date:	Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:01:48 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 09 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > At least in my tests these latencies were mainly due to a bug in 
> > > latt.c - i've attached the fixed version.
> > 
> > What bug? I don't see any functional change between the version 
> > you attach and the current one.
> 
> Here's the diff of what i fixed yesterday over the last latt.c 
> version i found in this thread. The poll() thing is the significant 
> one.

Ah indeed, thanks Ingo! I'm tempted to add some actual work processing
into latt as well, to see if that helps improve it.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/