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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:05:05 +0100
From:	"dAniel hAhler" <>
To:	LKML <>
Subject: Regression with idle cpu cycle handling in 2.6.24 (compared to 2.6.22)


I have BOINC running in the background with niceness 19.
With a 2.6.22 kernel, only idle cpu cycles get assigned to this process, as

But with the 2.6.24 kernel, the BOINC process gets at least about half of
all CPU cycles, even if there's another process (owned by another user)
requesting CPU cycles (e.g. "cat /dev/urandom > /dev/null")

This happens with the Ubuntu kernel (from Hardy) and the daily builds from (where I've just tested
rc8 now).

It appears that every user (here "boinc" and my user) get the same portion
of the overall CPU cycles, regardless of the process niceness.

Is this expected behaviour?

I'm using an AMD64 3000+ processor. Please ask for additional information, if
you need it (e.g. kernel config).

$ cat /dev/urandom > /dev/null &
$ sudo -u another_user nice -n 19 python -c 'i = 0;
while 1:
  i += i

The niced process should get nearly no CPU cycles.

The niced process gets about half of the CPU cycles (according to "top").

The bug has been reported for Ubuntu on

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists