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]

Message-Id: <E1HgTKk-0008IK-00@calista.eckenfels.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:18:02 +0200
From:	Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@...a.inka.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

In article <20070424212717.GR31925@...omorphy.com> you wrote:
> Could you explain for the audience the technical definition of fairness
> and what sorts of error metrics are commonly used? There seems to be
> some disagreement, and you're neutral enough of an observer that your
> statement would help.

And while we are at it, why it is a good thing. I could understand that fair
means no missbehaving (intentionally or unintentionally) application can
harm the rest of the system. However a responsive desktop might not
necesarily be very fair to compute jobs.

Even a simple thing as "who gets accounted" can be quite different in
different workloads. (larger multi user systems tend to be fair based on the
user, on servers you more balance by thread or job and single user systems
should be as unfair as the user wants them as long as no process can "run
away")

Gruss
Bernd
-
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/