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: <200706231326.34918.info@gnebu.es>
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2007 13:26:34 +0200
From:	Alberto Gonzalez <info@...bu.es>
To:	"Tom Spink" <tspink@...il.com>
Cc:	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question about fair schedulers

On Saturday 23 June 2007, Tom Spink wrote:
> Alberto,
>
> If you're feeling adventurous, grab the latest kernel and patch it
> with Ingo's scheduler: CFS.
>
> You may be pleasantly surprised.

Thanks, I might if I have to courage to patch and compile my own kernel :)

However, I'd also need to change all my applications to set them with the 
right priority to see the good results, so I think I might just wait until it 
lands in mainline.

Just to check if I understood everything correctly:

The mainline scheduler tries to be smart and guess the priority of each task, 
and while it mostly hits the nail right in the head, sometimes it hits you 
right in the thumb.

Fair schedulers, on the contrary, forget about trying to be smart and just 
care about being fair, leaving the priority settings to where they belong: 
applications.

Is this more or less correct?

Alberto.

-
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/