linux-kernel - Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v14

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, 28 May 2007 09:17:24 +0800
From:	Li Yu <raise.sail@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v14

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i'm pleased to announce release -v14 of the CFS scheduler patchset.
>
> The CFS patch against v2.6.22-rc2, v2.6.21.1 or v2.6.20.10 can be 
> downloaded from the usual place:
>    
>       http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/
>   

In comment before distribute_fair_add(), we have such text:

/*
  * A task gets added back to the runnable tasks and gets
  * a small credit for the CPU time it missed out on while
  * it slept, so fix up all other runnable task's wait_runtime
  * so that the sum stays constant (around 0).
  *
[snip]
  */

But as I observe by cat /proc/sched_debug (2.6.21.1, UP, RHEL4), I found 
the all waiting fields often are more than zero, or less than zero.

IMHO, the sum of task_struct->wait_runtime just is the denominator of 
all runnable time in some ways, is it right? if so, increasing the sum 
of wait_runtime just make scheduling decision more precise. so what's 
meaning for keeping the wait_runtime is zero-sum?

Good luck

- Li Yu
-
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/