linux-kernel - Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v5

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: <200704251251.49298.mail@earthworm.de>
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:51:44 +0200
From:	Christian Hesse <mail@...thworm.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.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,
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>, Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v5

On Wednesday 25 April 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Christian Hesse <mail@...thworm.de> wrote:
> > On Monday 23 April 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > i'm pleased to announce release -v5 of the CFS scheduler patchset.
> >
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > I just noticed that with cfs all processes (except some kernel
> > threads) run on cpu 0. I don't think this is expected cpu affinity for
> > an smp system? I remember about half of the processes running on each
> > core with mainline.
>
> i've got several SMP systems with CFS and all distribute the load
> properly to all CPUs, so it would be nice if you could tell me more
> about how the problem manifests itself on your system.
>
> for example, if you start two infinite loops:
>
>     for (( N=0; N < 2; N++ )); do ( while :; do :; done ) & done
>
> do they end up on the same CPU?
>
> Or do you mean that the default placement of single tasks starts at
> CPU#0, while with mainline they were alternating?

That was not your fault. I updated suspend2 to 2.2.9.13 and everything works 
as expected again. Sorry for the noise.
-- 
Regards,
Chris

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)