linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] scheduler: improve SMP fairness in CFS

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]

Date:	Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:16:45 -0400
From:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To:	Tong Li <tong.n.li@...el.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] scheduler: improve SMP fairness in CFS

Tong Li wrote:
> I'd like to clarify that I'm not trying to push this particular code to 
> the kernel. I'm a researcher. My intent was to point out that we have a 
> problem in the scheduler and my dwrr algorithm can potentially help fix 
> it. The patch itself was merely a proof-of-concept. I'd be thrilled if 
> the algorithm can be proven useful in the real world. I appreciate the 
> people who have given me comments. Since then, I've revised my 
> algorithm/code. Now it doesn't require global locking but retains strong 
> fairness properties (which I was able to prove mathematically).

Thanks for doing this work.  Please don't take the implementation criticism as a 
lack of appreciation for the work.  I'd like to see dwrr in the scheduler, but 
I'm skeptical that re-introducing expired runqueues is the most efficient way to 
do it.

Given the inherently controversial nature of scheduler code, particularly that 
which attempts to enforce fairness, perhaps a concise design document would help 
us come to an agreement about what we think the scheduler should do and what 
tradeoffs we're willing to make to do those things.  Do you have a design 
document we could discuss?

	-- Chris
-
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/