linux-kernel - Re: Fw: Regression with hyper threading scheduling

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

Message-ID: <20060821110220.GB6649@erig.dyndns.org>
Date:	Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:02:20 +0200
From:	Wolfgang Erig <Wolfgang.Erig@....de>
To:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: Regression with hyper threading scheduling

On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 10:42:06AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> Peter Williams wrote:
> >Andrew Morton wrote:
> ...
> >I'm unable to reproduce this problem with 2.6.18-rc4 on my HT system. 
> >I'm using top with the "last processor" field enabled to observe (rather 
> >than the methods described) and the two bash shells are both getting 
> >100% and are each firmly affixed to different CPUs.
> 
> Doing a "cat /proc/stat" also indicates that the problem is not present.
> 
> I wonder if the two xterms and/or their shells are have different nice 
> values (or scheduling policies)?
No.

> Also is the presence of PREEMPT in the uname output for the 2.6.17.8 
> kernel (not present in the 2.6.8.1 kernel's output) significant? 
> Presuming that this signifies the CONFIG_PREEMPT option is selected it 
> is worth noting that I do not have this selected in the kernel I tested.
We have tried witn and without CONFIG_PREEMPT and saw the same problem.

Wolfgang
-
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/