linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: fix GENTLE_FAIR

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, 04 Dec 2009 17:12:19 +0530
From:	Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@...e.de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: fix GENTLE_FAIR_SLEEPERS dependency

On 12/04/2009 04:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 15:50 +0530, Suresh Jayaraman wrote:
>>
>> I think originally introduced as a development/debugging facility,
>> sched_features is slowly transforming into a viable tool for System
>> Administrators, by looking at the impact of turning on/off some of these
>> features on some workloads (especially non-desktop workloads). And I
>> think these benefits should be passed on to the end users perhaps in the
>> form of documentation. 
> 
> This is really not meant to be used in that context. Its purely a debug
> feature, with knobs coming and going as we see fit.
> 

Does this also mean these features should not impact any specific
workload much?

http://osdir.com/ml/linux-kernel/2009-09/msg03406.html
In the thread above Ingo mentions about a few features and my
understanding is that some of these might favour one type of workload
than other. Is this not true anymore?


Thanks,

-- 
Suresh Jayaraman
--
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/