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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707181558590.1817@scrub.home>
Date:	Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:14:26 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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

Hi,

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> _changing_ it is an option within reason, and we've done it a couple of 
> times already in the past, and even within CFS (as Peter correctly 
> observed) we've been through a couple of iterations already. And as i 
> mentioned it before, the outer edge of nice levels (+19, by far the most 
> commonly used nice level) was inconsistent to begin with: 3%, 5%, 9% of 
> nice-0, depending on HZ.

Why do you constantly stress level 19? Yes, that one is special, all other 
positive levels were already relatively consistent.

> So changing that to a consistent (and 
> user-requested)

How old is CFS and how many users did it have so far? How many users has 
the old scheduler, which will be exposed to the new one soon?

> 1.5% is a much smaller change than you seem to make it 
> out to be.

The percentage levels are off by a factor of upto _seven_, sorry I fail 
see how you can characterize this as "small".

> So by your standard we could never change the 
> scheduler. (which your ultimate argument might be after all =B-)

Careful, you make assertion about me, for which you have absolutely no 
base, adding a smiley doesn't make this any funnier.

bye, Roman
-
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/