linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: util_est: add running

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]

Message-ID: <20180605153105.GM16081@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:31:05 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: util_est: add running_sum tracking

On 05/06/18 16:11, Patrick Bellasi wrote:

[...]

> If I run an experiment with your example above, while using the
> performance governor to rule out any possible scale invariance
> difference, here is what I measure:
> 
>    Task1 (40ms delayed by the following Task2):
>                                mean          std     max
>       running_avg        455.387449    22.940168   492.0
>       util_avg           433.233288    17.395477   458.0
> 
>    Task2 (waking up at same time of Task1 and running before):
>                                mean          std     max
>       running_avg        430.281834    22.405175   455.0
>       util_avg           421.745331    22.098873   456.0
> 
> and if I compare Task1 above with another experiment where Task1 is
> running alone:
> 
>    Task1 (running alone):
>                                mean          std     min
>       running_avg        460.257895    22.103704   460.0
>       util_avg           435.119737    17.647556   461.0

Wait, why again in this last case running_avg != util_avg? :)