linux-kernel - Re: RSDL v0.31

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:	Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:24:03 -0700
From:	Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, ck@....kolivas.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RSDL v0.31

On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 23:30 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 08:13 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 17 March 2007 02:34, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 00:40 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > Here are full patches for rsdl 0.31 for various base kernels. A full
> > > > announce with a fresh -mm series will follow...
> > > >
> > > > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20.3-rsdl-0.31.patch
> > > > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc3-sched-rsdl-0.
> > > >31.patch
> > > > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc3-mm2-rsdl-0.31
> > > >.patch
> > >
> > > It still has trouble with the x/gforce vs two niced encoders scenario.
> > > The previously reported choppiness is still present.
> > >
> > > I suspect that x/gforce landing in the expired array is the trouble, and
> > > that this will never be smooth without some kind of exemption.  I added
> > > some targeted unfairness to .30, and it didn't help much at all.
> > >
> > > Priorities going all the way to 1 were a surprise.
> > 
> > It wasn't going to change that case without renicing X.
> 
> Con.  You are trying to wedge a fair scheduler into an environment where
> totally fair simply can not possibly function.
> 
> If this is your final answer to the problem space, I am done testing,
> and as far as _I_ am concerned, your scheduler is an utter failure.
> 

Sorry, I haven't really been following this thread and now I'm confused.

You're saying that it's somehow the scheduler's fault that X isn't
running with a high enough priority?

-- 
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>

-
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/