linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.21-rc1: known regressions (v2) (part 2)

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, 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/