linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][ 3/5] sched: implement staircase deadline cpu

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200703271655.17157.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:55:17 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][ 3/5] sched: implement staircase deadline cpu

Con Kolivas wrote:
> All tasks are initially given a quota based on RR_INTERVAL. This is equal
> to RR_INTERVAL between nice values of -6 and 0, half that size above nice
> 0, and progressively larger for nice values from -1 to -20.

from -7 to -20.

I suppose this could be policy decision?

> This is
> assigned to p->quota and only changes with changes in nice level.
>
> As a task is first queued, it checks in recalc_task_prio to see if it has
> run at this runqueue's current priority rotation. If it has not, it will
> have its p->prio level set according to the first slot in a "priority
> matrix" and will be given a p->time_slice equal to the p->quota, and has
> its allocation bitmap bit set in p->bitmap for this prio level. It is then
> queued on the current active priority array.

I'm not sure why you need a matrix.  Can't you just deduce this based on 
static_prio and prio?

Also, I wonder if there is something inherently smoother than staircase.


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/