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: <4AB54033.7010901@openwrt.org>
Date:	Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:33:55 +0200
From:	Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org> wrote:
> 
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> > * Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org> wrote:
>> >> I did some tests with BFS v230 vs CFS on Linux 2.6.30 on a different
>> >> MIPS device (Atheros AR2317) with 180 MHz and 16 MB RAM. When running
>> >> iperf tests, I consistently get the following results when running the
>> >> transfer from the device to my laptop:
>> >> 
>> >> CFS: [  5]  0.0-60.0 sec    107 MBytes  15.0 Mbits/sec
>> >> BFS: [  5]  0.0-60.0 sec    119 MBytes  16.6 Mbits/sec
>> >> 
>> >> The transfer speed from my laptop to the device are the same with BFS
>> >> and CFS. I repeated the tests a few times just to be sure, and I will
>> >> check vmstat later.
>> > 
>> > Which exact mainline kernel have you tried? For anything performance 
>> > related running latest upstream -git (currently at 202c467) would be 
>> > recommended.
>>
>> I used the OpenWrt-patched 2.6.30. Support for the hardware that I 
>> tested with hasn't been merged upstream yet. Do you think that the 
>> scheduler related changes after 2.6.30 are relevant for non-SMP 
>> performance as well? If so, I'll work on a test with latest upstream 
>> -git with the necessary patches when I have time for it.
> 
> Dont know - it's hard to tell what happens without basic analysis tools. 
> Is there _any_ way to profile what happens on that system? (Do hrtimers 
> work on it that could be used to profile it?)
oprofile doesn't have any support for it (mips r4k, no generic
perfcounters), the only usable clock source is a simple cpu cycle
counter (which is also used for the timer interrupt).

- Felix
--
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/