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: <200708210900.54549.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:00:54 +0200
From:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:	schwidefsky@...ibm.com
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	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 Martin Schwidefsky:
> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 20:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Ok, that would mean that sched_clock can just return the virtual cpu
> time and the two hooks starts and stops the idle periods as far as the
> scheduler is concerned. In this case we can use the patch from Jan with
> the new implementation for sched_clock and add the two hooks to the
> places where the cpu-idle notifiers are done (do_monitor_call and
> default_idle). In fact this could be an idle-notifier. Hmm, I take a
> closer look tomorrow when I'm back at the office.
> 
> > If a virtual CPU is idle then i think the "real = steal, virtual = 0" 
> > way of thinking about idle looks a bit unnatural to me - wouldnt it be 
> > better to think in terms of "steal = 0, virtual = real" ? Basically a 
> > virtual CPU can idle at "perfect speed", without the host "stealing" any 
> > cycles from it. And with that way of thinking, if s390 passed in the 
> > real-idle-time value to the new callbacks below it would all fall into 
> > place. Hm?

Martin,

I think we already do something like this. If you look at cpustat in 2.6.22 
and earlier we already have steal increase = 0, idle increase = 100 % on an 
idle cpu, even on s390. So while from the hardware perspective steal is 
growing, we do the right thing in Linux, no?

Chrisian
-
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/