| 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: <20070301133004.GA32724@elte.hu> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:30:04 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org> Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc1: known regressions (v2) (part 2) * Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org> wrote: > [...] Even though I'm finding myself defending code that has already > been softly tagged for redundancy, let's be clear here; we're talking > about at most a further 70ms delay in scheduling a niced task in the > presence of a nice 0 task, which is a reasonable delay for ksoftirqd > which we nice the eyeballs out of in mainline. Considering under load > our scheduler has been known to cause scheduling delays of 10 seconds > I still don't see this as a bug. Dynticks just "points it out to us". well, not running softirqs when we could is a bug. It's not a big bug, but it's a bug nevertheless. It doesnt matter that softirqs could be delayed even worse under high load - there was no 'high load' here. Ingo - 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