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:	Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:33:08 -0500
From:	Jason Garrett-Glaser <darkshikari@...il.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
	Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS

Benchmarks for the new threading model are up, along with a few others:

http://doom10.org/index.php?topic=78.0

Interestingly enough, CFS beats BFS on zerolatency by a significant
margin.  Unsurprisingly, given the threading model, the optimal number
of threads is equal to the number of cores.

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/