linux-kernel - Re: Phoronix CFS vs BFS bencharks

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:32:15 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Marcin Letyns <mletyns@...il.com>
Cc:	Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@...or.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: Phoronix CFS vs BFS bencharks

On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 16:27 +0200, Marcin Letyns wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Disabling NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS makes a lot of difference here in the
> Apache benchmark:
> 
> 2.6.30.6-bfs: 7311.05
> 
> 2.6.30.6-cfs-fair_sl_disabled: 8249.17
> 
> 2.6.30.6-cfs-fair_sl_enabled: 4894.99

Wow.

Some loads like wakeup preemption (mysql+oltp), and some hate it.  This
load appears to REALLY hate it (as does volanomark, but that thing is
extremely overloaded).  How many threads does that benchmark run
concurrently?

In any case, it's currently disabled in tip.  Time will tell which
benchmarks gain, and which lose.  With it disabled, anything light loses
when competing with hog(s).  There _are_ one heck of a lot of hogs out
there though, so maybe it _should_ be disabled by default.  Dunno.

	-Mike

--
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/