linux-kernel - RE: Question about scheduling in 2.4.20

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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/