linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP

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: <45138FAC.30700@linbox.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:24:28 +0200
From:	Ludovic Drolez <ludovic.drolez@...box.com>
To:	Vincent Pelletier <vincent.plr@...adoo.fr>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP

Vincent Pelletier wrote:
> Maybe I was completely wrong with my assumption that one running process 
> always has an impact of 1, which would have make the scheduler underestimate 
> the load on one cpu and put too many processes on it, without moving them 
> afterward.

Yes, maybe that's the problem, since in my bench, one process takes only 40% of 
the CPU.

Cheers,

-- 
Ludovic DROLEZ                              Linbox / Free&ALter Soft
www.linbox.com www.linbox.org	              tel: +33 3 87 50 87 90
152 rue de Grigy - Technopole Metz 2000                   57070 METZ
-
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/