linux-kernel - Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1

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:	Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:03:52 +1000
From:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
To:	ck@....kolivas.org
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	jos poortvliet <jos@...nkamer.nl>,
	Michael Chang <thenewme91@...il.com>,
	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1

Interesting... Trying to avoid reading email but with a flooded inbox it's 
quite hard to do.

A lot of useful discussion seems to have generated in response to people's 
_interpretation_ of my interview rather than what I actually said. For 
example, everyone seems to think I quit because CFS was chosen over SD (hint: 
it wasn't). Since it's generating good discussion I'll otherwise leave it as 
is.

As a parting gesture; a couple of hints for CFS. 

Any difference in behaviour between CFS and SD since they both aim for 
fairness would come down to the way they interpret fair. Since CFS accounts 
sleep time whereas SD does not, that would be the reason.

As for volanomark regressions, they're always the sched_yield implementation. 
SD addressed a similar regression a few months back.

Good luck.

-- 
-ck
-
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/