linux-kernel - Re: is RSDL an "unfair" scheduler too?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1174199171.8543.1.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
Date:	Sun, 18 Mar 2007 07:26:11 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...o.co.il>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, ck@....kolivas.org,
	Serge Belyshev <belyshev@...ni.sinp.msu.ru>,
	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: is RSDL an "unfair" scheduler too?

On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 06:24 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> Maybe we're all discussing the problem because we have reached the point
> where we need two types of schedulers : one for the desktop and one for
> the servers. After all, this is already what is proposed with preempt,
> it would make sense provided they share the same core and avoid ifdefs
> or unused structure members. Maybe adding OPTIONAL unfairness to RSDL
> would help some scenarios, but in any case it is important to retain
> the default fairness it provides.

Bingo.

-
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/