linux-kernel - Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?

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:	Fri, 23 May 2008 15:12:16 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"Li, Tong N" <tong.n.li@...el.com>
Cc:	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <mingo@...e.hu>, <pj@....com>
Subject: Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 01:18:33PM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> I didn't look at your patches, but I thought you were flattening group
> weights down to task-level so that the scheduler only looks at per-task
> weights.

Wouldnt that require task weight readjustment upon every fork/exit?

> That'd make group fairness as good as task fairness gets. Is
> this still the case?

-- 
Regards,
vatsa
--
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/