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: <20090910102837.GJ18599@kernel.dk>
Date:	Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:28:37 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@...or.de>,
	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, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > However, the interactivity problems still remain.  Does that 
> > > > > > mean it's not a latency issue?
> > > > > 
> > > > > It means that Jens's test-app, which demonstrated and helped us 
> > > > > fix the issue for him does not help us fix it for you just yet.
> > > > 
> > > > Lemme qualify that by saying that Jens's issues are improved not 
> > > > fixed [he has not re-run with latest latt.c yet] but not all things 
> > > > are fully fixed yet. For example the xmodmap thing sounds 
> > > > interesting - could that be a child-runs-first effect?
> > > 
> > > I thought so too, so when -tip failed to boot I pulled the patches 
> > > from Mike into 2.6.31. It doesn't change anything for xmodmap, 
> > > though.
> > 
> > Note, you can access just the pristine scheduler patches by checking 
> > out and testing tip:sched/core - no need to pull them out and apply.
> > 
> > Your crash looks like clocksource related - that's in a separate 
> > topic which you can thus isolate if you use sched/core.
> 
> I'm building sched/core now and will run the xmodmap test there.

No difference. Then I tried switching NO_NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS on, and then
I get:

 Performance counter stats for 'xmodmap .xmodmap-carl':

       9.009137  task-clock-msecs         #      0.447 CPUs 
             18  context-switches         #      0.002 M/sec
              1  CPU-migrations           #      0.000 M/sec
            315  page-faults              #      0.035 M/sec
  <not counted>  cycles                  
  <not counted>  instructions            
  <not counted>  cache-references        
  <not counted>  cache-misses            

    0.020167093  seconds time elapsed

Woot!

-- 
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/