linux-kernel - Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v12

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: <46531EF6.3020204@nortel.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2007 10:48:54 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v12

Ingo Molnar wrote:

> CFS is fair even on SMP. Consider for example the worst-case 
> 3-tasks-on-2-CPUs workload on a 2-CPU box:
> 
>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
>  2658 mingo     20   0  1580  248  200 R   67  0.0   0:56.30 loop
>  2656 mingo     20   0  1580  252  200 R   66  0.0   0:55.55 loop
>  2657 mingo     20   0  1576  248  200 R   66  0.0   0:55.24 loop
> 
> 66% of CPU time for each task. The 'TIME+' column shows a 2% spread 
> between the slowest and the fastest loop after just 1 minute of runtime 
> (and the spread gets narrower with time).

Is there a way in CFS to tune the amount of time over which the load 
balancer is fair?  (Of course there would be some overhead involved.)

Chris
-
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/