linux-kernel - Re: Question about fair schedulers

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: <20070623090655.36d1794c@localhost>
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:06:55 +0200
From:	Paolo Ornati <ornati@...twebnet.it>
To:	Alberto Gonzalez <info@...bu.es>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question about fair schedulers

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:07:15 +0200
Alberto Gonzalez <info@...bu.es> wrote:

> My conclusion is that SD behaves as expected: it's more fair. But for a 
> desktop, shouldn't an "intelligently unfair" scheduler be better?

"intelligently unfair" is what the current scheduler is (because of
interactivity estimator).

When it works (say 90% of the time) the desktop feels really good...
but when it doesn't it can be a disaster.


Look this for example:

http://groups.google.com/group/fa.linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/6aa5c93c379ae9e1/98ab31c0e6fed2ee?&hl=en#98ab31c0e6fed2ee

-- 
	Paolo Ornati
	Linux 2.6.22-rc5-g0864a4e2 on x86_64
-
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/