linux-kernel - Preempt of BKL and with tickless systems

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4640E64D.3070304@tmr.com>
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2007 17:06:21 -0400
From:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To:	Linux Kernel mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Preempt of BKL and with tickless systems

I think I have a reasonable grip on the voluntary and full preempt 
models, can anyone give me any wisdom on the preempt of the BKL? I know 
what it does, the question is where it might make a difference under 
normal loads. Define normal as servers and desktops.

I've been running some sched tests, and it seems to make little 
difference how that's set. Before I run a bunch of extra tests, I 
thought I'd ask.

New topic: I have found preempt, both voluntary and forced, seems to 
help more with response as the HZ gets smaller. How does that play with 
tickless operation, or are you-all waiting for me to run my numbers with 
all values of HZ and not, and tell the world what I found? ;-)

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
-
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/