linux-kernel - Re: page fault scalability (ext3, ext4, xfs)

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:	Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:14:21 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, david@...morbit.com,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: page fault scalability (ext3, ext4, xfs)

On 08/14/2013 06:11 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> The point is that if the goal is to measure page fault scalability, we
> shouldn't have this other stuff happening as the same time as the page
> fault workload.

will-it-scale does several different tests probing at different parts of
the fault path:

https://www.sr71.net/~dave/intel/willitscale/systems/bigbox/3.11.0-rc2-dirty/foo.html

It does that both for process and threaded workloads which lets it get
pretty good coverage of different areas of code.

I only posted data from half of one of these tests here because it was
the only one that I found that both had noticeable overhead in the
filesystem code.  It also showed substantial, consistent, and measurable
deltas between the different filesystems.
--
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/