linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table

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: <1184754430.20032.130.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:27:10 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	James Bruce <bruce@...rew.cmu.edu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table

On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 10:47 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> >
> > To illustrate the problem a little different: a task with a nice level -20 
> > got around 700% more cpu time (or 8 times more), now it gets 8500% more 
> > cpu time (or 86.7 times more).
> 
> Ingo, that _does_ sound excessive. 
> 
> How about trying a much less aggressive nice-level (and preferably linear, 
> not exponential)?

I actually like the extra range, it allows for a much softer punch of
background tasks even on somewhat slower boxen.

I've been testing CFS on my 1200 MHz lappy for some time and a strongly
niced kbuild leaves a very usable system. 

The old scheduler would leave the thing rather jumpy. And while CFS
fully fixes the jumpyness, I just did a nice +13 (which should be
equivalent to the old schedulers nice +19 for my HZ) and did a nice +19
kbuild and I can definitely feel the difference between them.

Early CFS versions had an pretty aggressive nice range (0.1% for +19),
and that has been toned down based on feedback. The current levels seem
to work well, at least on my boxen.

- Peter

-
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/