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:	Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:48:20 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc:	Alex Shi <lkml.alex@...il.com>, rob@...dley.net, mingo@...hat.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	andre.przywara@....com, rjw@...k.pl, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pjt@...gle.com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/18] sched: simplified fork, enable load average into LB
 and power awareness scheduling

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 08:10:20PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> Another testing of parallel compress with pigz on Linus' git tree.
> results show we get much better performance/power with powersaving and
> balance policy:
> 
> testing command:
> #pigz -k -c  -p$x -r linux* &> /dev/null
> 
> On a NHM EP box
>          powersaving               balance   	         performance
> x = 4    166.516 /88 68           170.515 /82 71         165.283 /103 58
> x = 8    173.654 /61 94           177.693 /60 93         172.31 /76 76

This looks funny: so "performance" is eating less watts than
"powersaving" and "balance" on NHM. Could it be that the average watts
measurements on NHM are not correct/precise..? On SNB they look as
expected, according to your scheme.

Also, shouldn't you have the shortest compress times with "performance"?

> 
> On a 2 sockets SNB EP box.
>          powersaving               balance   	         performance
> x = 4    190.995 /149 35          200.6 /129 38          208.561 /135 35
> x = 8    197.969 /108 46          208.885 /103 46        213.96 /108 43
> x = 16   205.163 /76 64           212.144 /91 51         229.287 /97 44

Ditto here, compress times with "performance" are not the shortest. Or
does "performance" mean something else? :-)

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ