linux-kernel - RE: Question about fair schedulers

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, 24 Jun 2007 12:36:35 -0700
From:	"David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com>
To:	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Question about fair schedulers

Alberto Gonzalez wrote:

> On Saturday 23 June 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 2007, at 18:07:15, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:

> > What this *actually* means is that you want the media player to have
> > higher priority than the DVD ripping program.  Ergo you should run
> > "nice +20 my_dvd_burner" or "nice +20 my_vorbis_encoder" under CFS or
> > other fair schedulers.
>
> Ok, that makes sense. The problem is that desktop users don't
> know about such
> things, so the ideal situation would be that the scheduler knows
> about it and
> does it for you.

I disagree. How could the scheduler know that you care more about the media
player than the DVD ripping program? Maybe you're just watching unimportant
stuff to waste time while anxiously waiting for the DVD rip to finish.

Why should the scheduler make assumptions about what's important to the
user? If the user has priorities, they should tell the scheduler.

DS

-
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/