linux-kernel - Re: A nice CPU resource controller

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]

Message-Id: <1157010140.18561.23.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
Date:	Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:42:20 +0000
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>
Cc:	balbir@...ibm.com, Martin Ohlin <martin.ohlin@...trol.lth.se>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A nice CPU resource controller

On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 06:53 +0000, 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.

When extended to groups, I see your point.  The admin would lose his
ability to apportion bandwidth _within_ the group because he's already
turned his only knob.  That is going to be just as much of a problem for
other methods though, and is just a question of how much complexity you
want to pay to achieve fine grained control.

	-Mike

-
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/