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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:17:02 +0200 From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>, Jan Glauber <jang@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> Subject: Re: [accounting regression since rc1] scheduler updates Am Montag, 20. August 2007 schrieb Ingo Molnar: > could you send that precise sched_clock() patch? It should be an order > of magnitude simpler than the high-precision stime/utime tracking you > already do, and it's needed for quality scheduling anyway. I have a question about that. I just played with sched_clock, and even when I intentionally slow down sched_clock by a factor of 2, my cpu bound process gets 100 % in top. If this is intentional, I dont understand how a virtualized sched_clock would fix the accounting change? Thanks Christian - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists