linux-kernel - Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

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: <20070415085825.GE24886@elte.hu>
Date:	Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:58:25 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]


* Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:

> On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 15:01 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 
> > Well, I'll stop heating the room for now as I get out of ideas about 
> > how to defeat it. I'm convinced. I'm impatient to read about Mike's 
> > feedback with his workload which behaves strangely on RSDL. If it 
> > works OK here, it will be the proof that heuristics should not be 
> > needed.
> 
> You mean the X + mp3 player + audio visualization test?  X+Gforce 
> visualization have problems getting half of my box in the presence of 
> two other heavy cpu using tasks.  Behavior is _much_ better than 
> RSDL/SD, but the synchronous nature of X/client seems to be a problem.
> 
> With this scheduler, renicing X/client does cure it, whereas with SD 
> it did not help one bit. [...]

thanks for testing it! I was quite worried about your setup - two tasks 
using up 50%/50% of CPU time, pitted against a kernel rebuild workload 
seems to be a hard workload to get right.

> [...] (I know a trivial way to cure that, and this framework makes 
> that possible without dorking up fairness as a general policy.)

great! Please send patches so i can add them (once you are happy with 
the solution) - i think your workload isnt special in any way and could 
hit other people too.

	Ingo
-
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/