| 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: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 08:34:14 +1100 From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [wake_afine fixes/improvements 0/3] Introduction On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> wrote: > > I've been looking at the wake_affine path to improve the group scheduling case > (wake affine performance for fair group sched has historically lagged) as well > as tweaking performance in general. > > The current series of patches is attached, the first of which should probably be > considered for 2.6.38 since it fixes a bug/regression in the case of waking up > onto a previously (group) empty cpu. While the others can be considered more > forwards looking. > > I've been using an rpc ping-pong workload which is known be sensitive to poor affine > decisions to benchmark these changes, Not _necessarily_ the best thing to use :) As a sanity check maybe, but it would be nice to have at least an improvement on one workload that somebody actually uses (and then it's a matter of getting a lot more testing to see it does not cause regressions on others that people use). -- 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