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: <20070419031807.GA24512@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:18:07 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
	Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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 Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:48:21AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > 
> > Why is X special? Because it does work on behalf of other processes?
> > Lots of things do this. Perhaps a scheduler should focus entirely on
> > the implicit and directed wakeup matrix and optimizing that
> > instead[1].
> 
> I 100% agree - the perfect scheduler would indeed take into account where 
> the wakeups come from, and try to "weigh" processes that help other 
> processes make progress more. That would naturally give server processes 
> more CPU power, because they help others
> 
> I don't believe for a second that "fairness" means "give everybody the 
> same amount of CPU". That's a totally illogical measure of fairness. All 
> processes are _not_ created equal.

I believe that unless the kernel is told of these inequalities, then it
must schedule fairly.

And yes, by fairly, I mean fairly among all threads as a base resource
class, because that's what Linux has always done (and if you aggregate
into higher classes, you still need that per-thread scheduling).

So I'm not excluding extra scheduling classes like per-process, per-user,
but among any class of equal schedulable entities, fair scheduling is the
only option because the alternative of unfairness is just insane.

> That said, even trying to do "fairness by effective user ID" would 
> probably already do a lot. In a desktop environment, X would get as much 
> CPU time as the user processes, simply because it's in a different 
> protection domain (and that's really what "effective user ID" means: it's 
> not about "users", it's really about "protection domains").
> 
> And "fairness by euid" is probably a hell of a lot easier to do than 
> trying to figure out the wakeup matrix.

Well my X server has an euid of root, which would mean my X clients can
cause X to do work and eat into root's resources. Or as Ingo said, X
may not be running as root. Seems like just another hack to try to
implicitly solve the X problem and probably create a lot of others
along the way.

All fairness issues aside, in the context of keeping a very heavily
loaded desktop interactive, X is special. That you are trying to think
up funny rules that would implicitly give X better priority is kind of
indicative of that.

-
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/