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  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:	Sat, 24 Mar 2012 22:05:34 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>
Cc:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] BFS CPU scheduler version 0.420 AKA "Smoking" for linux kernel 3.3.0

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 05:53:32 -0400, Gene Heskett said:

> I for one am happy to see this, Con.  I have been running an earlier patch
> as pclos applies it to 2.6.38.8, and I must say the desktop interactivity
> is very much improved over the non-bfs version.

I'va always wondered what people are using to measure interactivity. Do we have
some hard numbers from scheduler traces, or is it a "feels faster"?  And if
it's a subjective thing, how are people avoiding confirmation bias (where you
decide it feels faster because it's the new kernel and *should* feel faster)?
Anybody doing blinded boots, where a random kernel old/new is booted and the
user grades the performance without knowing which one was actually running?

And yes, this can be a real issue - anybody who's been a aysadmin for
a while will have at least one story of scheduling an upgrade, scratching it
at the last minute, and then having users complain about how the upgrade
ruined performance and introduced bugs...


Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists