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: <20090910200636.GA13104@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:06:36 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@...or.de>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements


* Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de> wrote:

> Am Mittwoch 09 September 2009 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
> > On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 12:05 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > > Thank you for mentioning min_granularity.  After:
> > >
> > >    echo 10000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_latency_ns
> > >    echo 2000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_min_granularity_ns
> > 
> > You might also want to do:
> > 
> >      echo 2000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_wakeup_granularity_ns
> > 
> > That affects when a newly woken task will preempt an already running
> > task.
> 
> Heh that scheduler thing again... and unfortunately Col appearing 
> to feel hurt while I am think that Ingo is honest on his offer on 
> collaboration...
> 
> While it makes fun playing with that numbers and indeed 
> experiencing subjectively a more fluid deskopt how about just a
> 
> echo "This is a f* desktop!" > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_workload

No need to do that, that's supposed to be the default :-) The knobs 
are really just there to help us make it even more so - i.e. you 
dont need to tune them. But it really relies on people helping us 
out and tell us which combinations work best ...

> Or to say it in other words: The Linux kernel should not require 
> me to fine-tune three or more values to have the scheduler act in 
> a way that matches my workload.
> 
> I am willing to test stuff on my work thinkpad and my Amarok 
> thinkpad in order to help improving with that.

It would be great if you could check latest -tip:

  http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README

and compare it to vanilla .31?

Also, could you outline the interactivity problems/complaints you 
have?

	Ingo
--
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/