| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <44F671BE.6000607@bigpond.net.au> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:21:02 +1000 From: Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au> To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> CC: balbir@...ibm.com, Martin Ohlin <martin.ohlin@...trol.lth.se>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: A nice CPU resource controller Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 11:07 +1000, Peter Williams wrote: > >> But your implication here is valid. It is better to fiddle with the >> dynamic priorities than with nice as this leaves nice for its primary >> purpose of enabling the sysadmin to effect the allocation of CPU >> resources based on external considerations. > > I don't understand. It _is_ the administrator fiddling with nice based > on external considerations. It just steadies the administrator's hand. Not exactly. If "nice" is being (automatically) fiddled to meet some measurable requirement such as the amount of CPU tasks get it is no longer available as a means for the indication of the relative importance of the tasks. I.e. it can't be both the means for saying which tasks should be allocated the most CPU and the means by which that allocation is controlled. Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@...pond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce - 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