| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1308830816.1022.112.camel@twins> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:06:56 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> To: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com> Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 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.com>, Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org> Subject: Re: [patch 00/16] CFS Bandwidth Control v7 On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 19:05 +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote: > I'll continue my test/benchmark on this v7 for a while. > Though I believe no more bug is there, I'll let you know if there is > something. Would that testing include performance of a kernel without these patches vs one with these patches in a configuration where the new feature is compiled in but not used? It does add a number of if (!cfs_rq->runtime_enabled) return branches all over the place, some possibly inside a function call (depending on what the auto-inliner does). So while the impact should be minimal, it would be very good to test it is indeed so. -- 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