linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/17] sched: EEVDF using latency-nice

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9954d9bb880bd1a2736853e19602f3b552b961e4.camel@gmx.de>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:05:34 +0200
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com,
        corbet@....net, kprateek.nayak@....com, youssefesmat@...omium.org,
        joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] sched: EEVDF using latency-nice

On Wed, 2023-04-12 at 10:50 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:56:24 +0200 Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
>
>
> The data from you and David (lat_nice: -12 throughput: -.9% to 0.25%) is
> supporting eevdf, given a optimization <5% could be safely ignored in general
> (while 10% good and 20% standing ovation).
>

There's nothing pro or con here, David's testing seems to agree with my
own testing that a bit of adjustment may be necessary and that's it.
Cold hard numbers to developer, completely optional mitigation tweak to
fellow tester.. and we're done.

	-Mike