linux-kernel - Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v19

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: <1184568165.6317.63.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:42:45 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Markus <lists4me@....de>
Cc:	Ed Tomlinson <edt@....ca>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v19

On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 23:11 +0200, Markus wrote:
> > > [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/07/14/60
> > 
> > Hm.  Tasks disappearing isn't you're typical process scheduler problem
> > by any means, nor is an idle box exhibiting mouse "lurchiness".  Is
> > there anything unusual in your logs?
> 
> I know that its not typical, but when my current kernel is stable and 
> shows the same problem with the cfs-patch applied like the 
> git-snapshot, I would say its a cfs issue.

Yes, from your description, and with the now presented additional
information that the git-snapshot exhibits the same symptoms, it sounds
like cfs _may_ be implicated in some way.  I can't imagine how at the
moment.  In your original report, there are other patches involved,
which are an unknown variables.  The git-snapshot contains very many
changes other than cfs as well.  I'd eliminate absolutely all unknowns
as the first step.

> But I can build a plain 2.6.22 without cfs and one with it and compare 
> dmesgs output, if that helps.

Yes.  It would definitely be worth while to test a virgin stable kernel,
and then add only cfs with identical config.  Dmesg output may not turn
up anything, but eliminating all other variables should either pin the
tail on the donkey (cfs?) or vindicate it, and that's what needs to be
nailed down solidly first.

	-Mike

-
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/