| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <FA6FB5FA4DA6BF4386D129273B2E3EC301EDDE0F@xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:52:24 -0700 From: "Ravinandan Arakali \(rarakali\)" <rarakali@...co.com> To: "Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: Question about scheduling in 2.4.20 Hi, I notice with our version, it's running 2.4.20 but has the O(1) scheduling patch. Specifically, we see that the process sleeps inside an ioctl for more than 3 secs, wakes up, comes out of the blocking call and is immediately scheduled out. After this, it's not scheduled for next 4 secs. Does this look like a fairness/starvation issue ? Thanks, Ravi -----Original Message----- From: Ravinandan Arakali (rarakali) Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:02 AM To: Linux Kernel Subject: Question about scheduling in 2.4.20 Hi, I have a question about scheduling latencies in 2.4.20. We are seeing that our process (started with default priority, normal fork, exec) is not scheduled on the CPU for 4 seconds (from our kernel traces). Is that possible under heavy load ? We believe the process is still alive but I wanted to know if anybody has an idea from experimental results, about the worst case scenario. >From syscall trace, we also know that the process is not inside any blocking system call. Thanks, Ravi - 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