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 20:57:23 -0400
From:	Ting Yang <tingy@...umass.edu>
To:	tingy@...umass.edu
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>, efault@....de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fair clock use in CFS



>
>
> It is possible to do something like this in check_preemption ?
>
>       delta = curr->fair_key - first->fair_key;
>
>       if (delta > ??? [scale it as you wish] ||
>            (curr->key > first->key) && (curr->wait_runtime > ??? 
> [simple funtion of curr->weight]) )
>              preempt
Forgive me, there is typo in the above check. It should be "less than" 
since we are controlling negative lags.

           (curr->key > first->key) && (curr->wait_runtime < ??? [simple 
funtion of curr->weight]) )

>
> A limit control on wait_runtime may prevent a high weight task from 
> running for too long, so that others get executed a little earlier. 
> Just a thought :-)
>
>
Ting
-
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/