| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 22:15:18 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com> 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 * Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com> wrote: > 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.) it should be fair pretty fast (see the 10 seconds run of massive_intr) - so it's not 1 minute (if you were worried about that). 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists