linux-kernel - Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

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:	Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:37:47 +0200
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
Cc:	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>, caglar@...dus.org.tr,
	Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>, Zach Carter <linux@...hcarter.com>,
	buddabrod <buddabrod@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 05:55 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> You'll also hit the same holes should you attempt to write such a
> modularity patch for mainline as opposed to porting current mainline to
> the driver API as-given. It takes a bit more work to get something that
> actually works for all this, and it borders on disingenuity to
> suggest that the scheduler class/driver API as it now stands is
> capable of any such thing as porting current mainline, nicksched, or SD
> to it without significant code impact to the core scheduler code.

I never said, that the current implementation of CFS fits the criteria
of modularity, but it is a step in that direction. I'm well aware that
there is a bunch of things missing and it has hard coded leftovers,
which are related to the current two hard coded policy classes.

> So on both these points, I don't see cfs as being adequate as it now
> stands for a modular, hierarchical scheduler design. If we want a truly
> modular and hierarchical scheduler design, I'd suggest pursuing it
> directly and independently of policy, and furthermore considering the
> representability of various policies in the scheduling class/driver API
> as a test of its adequacy.

Ack. I don't worry much whether the CFS policy is better than the SD
one. I'm all for a truly modular design. SD and SCHED_FAIR are good
proofs for it.

	tglx


-
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/