linux-kernel - Re: fair clock use in CFS

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:	Mon, 14 May 2007 04:20:16 -0700
From:	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
To:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, efault@....de, tingy@...umass.edu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fair clock use in CFS

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 04:05:00AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> The variability in ->fair_clock advancement rate was the mistake, at
>> least according to my way of thinking. The queue's virtual time clock
>> effectively stops under sufficiently high load, possibly literally in
>> the event of fixpoint underflow. 

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 04:52:59PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> [snip]

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 04:05:00AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Basically it needs to move closer to EEVDF in these respects.

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 04:52:59PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Doesn't EEVDF have the same issue? From the paper:
> 	V(t) = 1/(w1 + w2 + ...wn)

Who knows what I was smoking, then. I misremembered the scale factor
as being on the other side of comparisons with the queue's clock. I'm
suspicious of EEVDF's timekeeping now as well.


-- wli
-
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/