linux-kernel - Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS

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]

Date:	Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:42:24 -0800
From:	Jason Garrett-Glaser <darkshikari@...il.com>
To:	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk> wrote:
> well well :) nothing quite speaks out like graphs..
>
> http://doom10.org/index.php?topic=78.0
>
>
>
> regards,
> Kasper Sandberg

Yeah, I sent this to Mike a bit ago.  Seems that .32 has basically
tied it--and given the strict thread-ordering expectations of x264,
you basically can't expect it to do any better, though I'm curious
what's responsible for the gap in "veryslow", even with SCHED_BATCH
enabled.

The most odd case is that of "ultrafast", in which CFS immediately
ties BFS when we enable SCHED_BATCH.  We're doing some further testing
to see exactly what the conditions of this are--is it because
ultrafast is just so much faster than all the other modes and so
switches threads/loads faster?  Is it because ultrafast has relatively
equal workload among the threads, unlike the other loads?  We'll
probably know soon.

Jason
--
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/