| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:31:57 -0800 From: Nikhil Rao <ncrao@...gle.com> To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> Cc: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>, "Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>, zheng.z.yan@...el.com Subject: Re: [performance bug] volanomark regression on 37-rc1 On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 20:38 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote: > >> Does VolanoMark is used for scheduler benchmarking? If I'm not wrong, >> I don't think it directly relates to scheduler benchmarking. > > It's not generally considered to be a wonderful benchmark, but it is a > good indicator, and worth keeping an eye on IMHO. > > I don't recall whether that patch works with the idle testcase without > resetting the throttle, or if it's only a bit less effective. If it's > only a little less effective, I'd be inclined to just whack the reset as > Alex did. Whatever is done has to prevent high frequency balancing. > >From what I recall, I think removing the reset makes the original patch a little less effective. I agree that we can remove the reset if it hurts high frequency balancing. -Thanks, Nikhil -- 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