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]

Message-Id: <1261324276.7227.11.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date:	Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:51:16 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>
Cc:	Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
	Jason Garrett-Glaser <darkshikari@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS

On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 16:13 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 13:10 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> 
> > and as for CFS, it SHOULD exhibit fair behavior anyway, isnt it called
> > "completely FAIR scheduler" ? or is that just the marketing name?
> 
> Clue:  CFS _did_ distribute CPU evenly.  Ponder that for a moment.

All done?

Do you think THAT may be why I thought Con might be interested?!?

	-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/