linux-kernel - Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v18

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:	Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:11:56 +0200
From:	"Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v18

On 7/3/07, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> does it still get more CPU time than you'd expect it to get? A reniced
> or SCHED_IDLE task will 'fill in' any idle time that it senses, so in
> itself it's not an anomaly if a task gets 50% and FEH fills in the
> remaining 50%. Does it still get CPU time if you start two CPU hogs:
>
>    for (( N=0; N < 2; N++ )); do ( while :; do :; done ) & done
>
> ? If yes, that would be an anomaly.

No, with this test, it gets the expected amount of CPU. Thanks for
clearing it up!

Vegard
-
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/