linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] sched_ext: Support high-performance monotonically non-decreasing clock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c767b581-d9f2-4ab1-8896-2c92ece50c95@igalia.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 15:37:55 +0900
From: Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
Cc: tj@...nel.org, void@...ifault.com, mingo@...hat.com,
 peterz@...radead.org, kernel-dev@...lia.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] sched_ext: Support high-performance monotonically
 non-decreasing clock

Hi Andrea,

On 24. 12. 21. 07:29, Andrea Righi wrote:
> I've tested this patch set and I haven't observed any significant
> performance improvements (but also no regressions), even if the systems
> I've tested are likely quite efficient at reading the hardware TSC.

Thank you for the testing. I am glad to hear that there is no
performance regression on an TSC-efficient system.

> I'm curious if we'd see a more significant difference in non-hardware
> virtualized systems (i.e., qemu without kvm). Have you done any testing in
> such environments already?

Well, I guess the gain is mostly relevant to how inefficient TSC
is in the system and how much a workload stresses TSC.

Regards,
Changwoo Min