linux-kernel - Re: RSDL v0.31

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:	Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:22:08 -0400
From:	Stephen Clark <Stephen.Clark@...lark.us>
To:	Mark Hahn <hahn@...aster.ca>
CC:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RSDL v0.31

Mark Hahn wrote:

>>So in an attempt to summarise the situation, what are the advantages of RSDL
>>over mainline.
>>
>>Fairness
>>    
>>
>
>why do you think fairness is good, especially always good?
>
>  
>
>>Starvation free
>>    
>>
>
>even starvation is sometimes a good thing - there's a place for processes
>that only use the CPU if it is otherwise idle.  that is, they are
>deliberately starved all the rest of the time.
>
>  
>
>>Much lower and bound latencies
>>    
>>
>
>in an average sense?  also, under what circumstances does this actually
>matter?  (please don't offer something like RT audio on an overloaded machine-
>that's operator error, not something to design for.)
>
>  
>
>>Deterministic
>>    
>>
>
>not a bad thing, but how does this make itself apparent and of value 
>to the user?  I think everyone is extremely comfortable with non-determinism
>(stemming from networks, caches, interleaved workloads, etc)
>
>  
>
>>Better interactivity for the majority of cases.
>>    
>>
>
>how is this measured?  is this statement really just a reiteration of 
>the latency claim?
>
>  
>
>>Now concentrating on the very last aspect since that seems to be the sticking
>>point.
>>    
>>
>
>nah, I think the fairness and latency claims are the real issues.
>-
>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/
>
>  
>
I guess I wonder what is wrong with the current scheduler? I am running 
2.6.20.2 on a whitebook
laptop with a core 2 duo 1.86ghz 2gb of mem with an intel 945 shared 
memory graphics processor.
I am currently running X with beryl have vncserver connected to my main 
system, which I am
using to write this email, I am running also firefox and both of ingo 
test programs. I also am running
a make -j4 on a kernel rebuild without having any pauses or any problem 
doing anything interactively.

So again what does this new scheduler fix?

Steve

-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, 
deserve neither liberty nor safety."  (Ben Franklin)

"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty 
decreases."  (Thomas Jefferson)



-
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/