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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:42:37 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 21:11 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > How would you go about ensuring that there won't be any cycles wasted? SCHED_IDLE or otherwise nice 19 > Killing the known corner case starvation scenarios is wonderful, but > let's not just pretend that interactive tasks don't have any special > requirements. Interaction wants low latency, getting that is traditionally expressed in priorities - the highest prio gets the least latency (all RTOSs work like that). There is nothing that warrants giving them more CPU time IMHO; if you think they deserve more, express that using priorities. Priorities are a well understood concept and they work; heuristics can (and Murphy tells us they will) go wrong. Getting the server/client thing working can be done without heuristics using class based scheduling. - 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