linux-kernel - Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

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]

Date:	Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:03:04 -0400
From:	Geert Bosch <bosch@...core.com>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, caglar@...dus.org.tr,
	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44


On Apr 21, 2007, at 12:18, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Also, I believe that (in shells), most forked processes do not even  
> consume
> a full timeslice (eg: $(uname -n) is very fast). This means that  
> assigning
> them with a shorter one will not hurt them while preserving the  
> shell's
> performance against CPU hogs.

On a fast machine, during regression testing of GCC, I've noticed we  
create
an average of 500 processes per second during an hour or so. There  
are other
work loads like this. So, most processes start, execute and complete  
in 2ms.
How does fairness work in a situation like this?

   -Geert
-
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/