linux-kernel - Re: The 10ms averager in fair.c

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:07:53 +0200
From:	Uwaysi Bin Kareem <uwaysi.bin.kareem@...adoxuncreated.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: The 10ms averager in fair.c

On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:19:15 +0200, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:

> On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 08:56 +0200, Uwaysi Bin Kareem wrote:
>
>> What you can do for the time being is just set it to 1nS. If that  
>> doesn`t
>> negatively impact anything, then you know it is bogus.
>
> I already know that there is negative impact.
>
> -Mike
>

You already know? Then please elaborate, what a 10ms smoother is doing in  
a nanosecond resolution scheduler.

Superficially there is no negative impact with Renoise, doom 3, chromium,  
on a shaved+low/latency/low jitter kernel, core 2 duo desktop. Chromium  
actually got faster. Well it felt faster, and that is what I care about.  
You can probably config differently and get more throughput for servers,  
but that does not equate to throughput when talking about displayed frames  
on screen. So please elaborate what you mean by negative impact.

Peace Be With You.
--
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/