linux-kernel - Re: CFS Scheduler and real-time tasks

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]

Message-ID: <20070517192343.GA24249@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2007 21:23:43 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Török Edvin <edwintorok@...il.com>
Cc:	mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CFS Scheduler and real-time tasks

* Török Edvin <edwintorok@...il.com> wrote:

> Is there something I am doing wrong, or is the precision decrease 
> expected, when running real-time tasks too?

yeah: real-time tasks are ueber-tasks that just get all CPU time 
immediately. I guess we could make SCHED_RR be covered by CFS accounting 
eventually.

> Very precise indeed, the default scheduler produces lots of different 
> timings there.

note: you ran it on a dual-core system and the SMP load-balancer needs 
time to gain precision in the non-RT test - so i'd suggest to test it 
much longer than 10 seconds: 300 seconds at least.

	Ingo
-
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/