linux-kernel - Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8

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:	Thu, 3 May 2007 19:56:18 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Ting Yang <tingy@...umass.edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8

On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 10:50:15AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> - EEVDF concentrates on real-time (SCHED_RR-alike) workloads where they
>   know the length of work units

This is what I was thinking when I wrote earlier that EEVDF expects each
task will specify "length of each new request"
(http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/2/339).

The other observation that I have of EEVDF is that it tries to be fair
in the virtual time scale (each client will get 'wi' real units in 1
virtual unit), whereas sometimes fairness in real-time scale also matters?
For ex: a multi-media app would call scheduler fair to it, it it recvs
atleast 1 ms cpu time every 10 *real* milleseconds (frame-time). A rogue
user (or workload) that does a fork bomb may skew this fairness for that
multi-media app in real-time scale under EEVDF?

-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/