| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:02:43 +0200 From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] dubious process system time. On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 17:18 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > At the moment hardirq+softirq is just added to a random process, in > > general this is completely wrong. > > It's better than not accounting it at all. I think it is worse than not accounting it. You are "charging" a process of some user for something that the user has nothing to do with. > > You just need a system with a cpu hog > > and an i/o bound process and you get queer results. > > Yes, but system load that is invisible to standard monitoring > tools is even worse. But it isn't invisible. cpustat->hardirq and cpustate->softirq will be increased. /proc/stat will show the system time spent in these two contexts. > If you stop accounting it to random processes you have to > account it somewhere else. Preferably somewhere that standard tools > automatically pick up. Again, why do I have to account non-process related time to a process? Ihmo that is completly wrong. -- blue skies, Martin. Martin Schwidefsky Linux for zSeries Development & Services IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists