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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20070417225902.GQ2986@holomorphy.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:59:02 -0700
From:	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
	Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.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]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:32:56PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> I'm already working with this as my assumed nice semantics (actually
>> something with a specific exponential base, suggested in other emails)
>> until others start saying they want something different and agree.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 05:39:09PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Good. This has a couple nice mathematical properties, including
> "bounded unfairness" which I mentioned earlier. What base are you
> looking at?

I'm working with the following suggestion:


On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:07:49AM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
> Nonlinear is a must IMO.  I would suggest X = exp(ln(10)/10) ~= 1.2589
> That value has the property that a nice=10 task gets 1/10th the cpu of a
> nice=0 task, and a nice=20 task gets 1/100 of nice=0.  I think that
> would be fairly easy to explain to admins and users so that they can
> know what to expect from nicing tasks.


I'm not likely to write the testcase until this upcoming weekend, though.


-- wli
-
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/