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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:44:48 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: "Lofstedt, Marta" <marta.lofstedt@...el.com> Cc: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com" <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>, "daniel.lezcano@...aro.org" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>, "martin.peres@...ux.intel.com" <martin.peres@...ux.intel.com>, "pasha.tatashin@...cle.com" <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>, "daniel.vetter@...ll.ch" <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:31:40AM +0000, Lofstedt, Marta wrote: > Hi Peterz, > > I tested your patch-set on the same Core2 machine as where we discovered the regression. > With the tsc=unstable boot param that passrate has improved significantly; 350 fails -> 15 fails. So is that the same as before, or still worse? I don't really have a handle on what your benchmark is here, nor what how 'good' is defined. If its still worse than before, I'm completely confused. Because with "tsc=unstable" the patch you fingered is a complete no-op (__gtod_offset == 0).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists