linux-kernel - Re: report a bug about sched

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

Date:	Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:43:25 +0800
From:	sen wang <wangsen.linux@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kernel@...ivas.org,
	npiggin@...e.de, arjan@...radead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: report a bug about sched_rt

2009/7/24 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 23:07 +0800, sen wang wrote:
>> 2009/7/24 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
>> > On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 22:04 +0800, sen wang wrote:
>> >
>> >> just one question:
>> >> if cpu is free and there is running state task, how you do?
>> >> schedule the task up? or schedule idle task up?
>> >
>> > Well, when an RT group is over the bandwidth limit I don't consider them
>> > runnable. Therefore, failing to find any other tasks, we run the idle
>> > task.
>> >
>>
>> you havn't anwser the question: if cpu is free, should we  schedule the
>> running state task or idle task?
>
> It it not runnable because the group is over its limit.
>
>> face the error and fix it! ok?
>
> Please tone down and re-read the explanations I gave.
>
> The throttle is an H-CBS services for RT task groups, meant to provide
> isolation through a fixed resource guarantee.
>
> Any process actually hitting the throttle means a miss configured system
> -- unless its a temporary overload and you're able to deal with those.
>
> The single group case is simply the trivial case thereof.
>
> Your proposed change does not generalize to such a framework, and while
> it might work with the current code, it doesn't serve a use-case
> considered in this architecture and will render the interface
> inconsistent.
>
> Furthermore, future work in this area will not be able to support your
> changed semantics in a sane fashion.
>
> I've yet to see any coherent explanation of your problem, and quite
> frankly I find your attitude offensive.
>
> As you say, Linux is an open-source effort, and you're free to do with
> your copy as you see fit (provided you stick to the rules stipulated by
> the GPLv2). However as co-maintainer of the mainline scheduler I see no
> reason to entertain your change, nor for that matter to continue this
> discussion.
>
>

sorry for my tone, If you feel hurted. I apologize.

But I still hold my viewpoint. I just want the 100-x time should be
used by running  task.
--
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/