linux-kernel - Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20070429073819.GD23638@1wt.eu>
Date:	Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:38:19 +0200
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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,
	Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>, Zach Carter <linux@...hcarter.com>,
	buddabrod <buddabrod@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 09:30:30AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for 
> > everybody and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect.
> >
> > I had the feeling that SD matched that goal right now, [...]
> 
> curious, which are the reports where in your opinion CFS behaves worse 
> than vanilla?

see below :-)

> There were two audio skipping reports against CFS, the 
> most serious one got resolved and i hope the other one has been resolved 
> by the same fix as well. (i'm still waiting for feedback on that one)

your answer to your question above ;-)
Yes, we're all waiting for feedback. And I said I did not track the
versions involved, so it is possible that all previously encountered
regressions are fixed by now.

> > [...] except for Mike who has not tested recent versions. [...]
> 
> actually, dont discount Mark Lord's test results either. And it might be 
> a good idea for Mike to re-test SD 0.46?

In any case, it might be a good idea because Mike encountered a problem
that nobody could reproduce. It may come from hardware, scheduler design,
scheduler bug, or any other bug, but whatever the cause, it would be
interesting to conclude on it.

> 	Ingo

Willy

-
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/