linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/15] CFS Bandwidth Control V6

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: <4DF954E5.9060704@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:57:09 +0900
From:	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Hu Tao <hutao@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.co>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/15] CFS Bandwidth Control V6

(2011/06/15 17:37), Hu Tao wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 04:29:49PM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
>> (2011/06/14 15:58), Hu Tao wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've run several tests including hackbench, unixbench, massive-intr
>>> and kernel building. CPU is Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3430  @ 2.40GHz,
>>> 4 cores, and 4G memory.
>>>
>>> Most of the time the results differ few, but there are problems:
>>>
>>> 1. unixbench: execl throughout has about 5% drop.
>>> 2. unixbench: process creation has about 5% drop.
>>> 3. massive-intr: when running 200 processes for 5mins, the number
>>>    of loops each process runs differ more than before cfs-bandwidth-v6.
>>>
>>> The results are attached.
>>
>> I know the score of unixbench is not so stable that the problem might
>> be noises ... but the result of massive-intr is interesting.
>> Could you give a try to find which piece (xx/15) in the series cause
>> the problems?
> 
> After more tests, I found massive-intr data is not stable, too. Results
> are attached. The third number in file name means which patchs are
> applied, 0 means no patch applied. plot.sh is easy to generate png
> files.

(Though I don't know what the 16th patch of this series is, anyway)
I see that the results of 15, 15-1 and 15-2 are very different and that
15-2 is similar to without-patch.

One concern is whether this unstable of data is really caused by the
nature of your test (hardware, massive-intr itself and something running
in background etc.) or by a hidden piece in the bandwidth patch set.
Did you see "not stable" data when none of patches is applied?
If not, which patch makes it unstable?


Thanks,
H.Seto

--
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/