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]

Date:	Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:44:40 +0000
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	balbir@...ibm.com
Cc:	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
	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 11:47 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:

> It's my belief that time and priorities are orthogonal. Nice does a good job
> of trying to mix the two,  but in the case of resource management it might not
> be such a good idea.

I don't think they're orthogonal.  If two tasks of identical priority
are contending for cpu, and you choose the one with more time on it's
group ticket, you have effectively modified priorities.

Regardless, nice sounded attractive to me at first, but it's flat wrong
to use a per task variable to store group scope information, so I have
to agree that nice isn't a good choice for group resource management.

	-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/