| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090921132059.10b2723d@infradead.org> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:20:59 +0200 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Johannes Buchner <buchner.johannes@....at> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Influence of optimization level, preemption and scheduler on boot time On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:25:53 +1200 Johannes Buchner <buchner.johannes@....at> wrote: > Hi all. > > I measured the kernel (and system) boot times while varying the > parameters: > - Optimization level: -Os, -O2 and also -O3 > - Preemptive model > - Scheduler: CFQ, Anticipatory, Deadline, Noop > > My conclusion was that the optimization level and the preemptive model > had no significant influence on speed. CFQ let my system boot several > seconds faster than the other schedulers. > > Graphs can be found at: > http://johannes.jakeapp.com/blog/?p=913 > > This conclusion may not be true for all situations, but I found it > interesting that the optimization level is so irrelevant. > it's interesting to see that the IO scheduler mattered.. I would think that (s)readahead makes the IO scheduler irrelevant for boot time... -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists