linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2

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, 25 Jul 2006 15:40:31 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
Cc:	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:27:14 +0300, Al Boldi said:
> Peter Williams wrote:

> > It's probably not a good idea to have different schedulers managing the
> > same resource.  The way to do different scheduling per process is to use
> > the scheduling policy mechanism i.e. SCHED_FIFO, SCHED_RR, etc.
> > (possibly extended) within each scheduler.  On the other hand, on an SMP
> > system, having a different scheduler on each run queue (or sub set of
> > queues) might be interesting :-).  
> 
> What's wrong with multiple run-queues on UP?

On an SMP system, you can have one CPU doing one class of scheduling (long
timeslice for computational, for example), while another CPU is dedicated
to doing RT scheduling, and so on.  It's not clear to me that "different
classes per CPU" makes any real sense on a UP....

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped