linux-kernel - Re: Re: HT (Hyper Threading) aware process scheduling doesn't work as it should

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <574299906.69412.1320054001912.JavaMail.mail@webmail05>
Date:	Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:40:01 +0000 (GMT)
From:	"Artem S. Tashkinov" <t.artem@...os.com>
To:	hmh@....eng.br
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: HT (Hyper Threading) aware process scheduling doesn't work
 as it should

> On Oct 31, 2011, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh  wrote: 
> 
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote:
> > > Please make sure both are set to 0.  If they were not 0 at the time you
> > > ran your tests, please retest and report back.
> > 
> > That's 0 & 0 for me.
> 
> How idle is your system during the test?

load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

As I've mentioned great many times I run this test on a completely idle system
(i.e. I even `init 3` in advance to avoid any unexpected CPU usage spikes
caused by unrelated processed).

I have to insist that people conduct this test on their own without trusting my
words. Probably there's something I overlook or don't fully understand but from
what I see, there's a serious issue here (at least Microsoft XP and 7 work exactly
the way I believe an OS should handle such a load).

Artem
--
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/