linux-kernel - Re: [accounting regression since rc1] scheduler updates

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: <200708211017.02998.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
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/