linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] RSDL completely fair starvation free interactive cpu scheduler

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: <200703121426.00854.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:26:00 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
Cc:	ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] RSDL completely fair starvation free interactive cpu scheduler

Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Monday 12 March 2007 15:42, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Monday 12 March 2007 08:52, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > And thank you! I think I know what's going on now. I think each
> > > > rotation is followed by another rotation before the higher priority
> > > > task is getting a look in in schedule() to even get quota and add it
> > > > to the runqueue quota. I'll try a simple change to see if that
> > > > helps. Patch coming up shortly.
> > >
> > > Can you try the following patch and see if it helps. There's also one
> > > minor preemption logic fix in there that I'm planning on including.
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > Applied on top of v0.28 mainline, and there is no difference.
> >
> > What's it look like on your machine?
>
> The higher priority one always get 6-7ms whereas the lower priority one
> runs 6-7ms and then one larger perfectly bound expiration amount.
> Basically exactly as I'd expect. The higher priority task gets precisely
> RR_INTERVAL maximum latency whereas the lower priority task gets
> RR_INTERVAL min and full expiration (according to the virtual deadline) as
> a maximum. That's exactly how I intend it to work. Yes I realise that the
> max latency ends up being longer intermittently on the niced task but
> that's -in my opinion- perfectly fine as a compromise to ensure the nice 0
> one always gets low latency.

I think, it should be possible to spread this max expiration latency across 
the rotation, should it not?


Thanks!

--
Al

-
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/