linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] sched: automated per session task groups

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, 7 Dec 2010 03:32:56 -0800
From:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
To:	James Courtier-Dutton <james.dutton@...il.com>
Cc:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched: automated per session task groups

Desktop hardware came in today and I can now reproduce the issues
Mike's been seeing; tuning in progress.

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:55 PM, James Courtier-Dutton
> <james.dutton@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 3 December 2010 05:11, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I actually don't have a desktop setup handy to test "interactivity" (sad but
>>> true -- working on grabbing one).  But it looks better on under synthetic
>>> load.
>>>
>>
>> What tools are actually used to test "interactivity" ?
>> I posted a tool to the list some time ago, but I don't think anyone noticed.
>> My tool is very simple.
>> When you hold a key down, it should repeat. It should repeat at a
>> constant predictable interval.
>> So, my tool just waits for key presses and times when each one occurred.
>> The tester simply presses a key and holds it down.
>> If the time between each key press is constant, it indicates good
>> "interactivity". If the time between each key press varies a lot, it
>> indicates bad "interactivity".
>> You can reliably test if one kernel is better than the next using
>> actual measurable figures.
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> James
>>
>
> Could you drop me a pointer?  I can certainly give it a try.  It would
> be extra useful if it included any histogram functionality.
>
> I've been using a combination of various synthetic wakeup and load
> scripts and measuring the received bandwidth / wakeup latency.
>
> They have not succeeded in reproducing the starvation or poor latency
> observed by Mike above however.  (Although I've pulled a box to try
> reproducing his exact conditions [ e.g. user environment ] on Monday).
>
--
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/