linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] BFS CPU scheduler version 0.420 AKA "Smoking" for linux kernel 3.3.0

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]

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