linux-kernel - Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?

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:	Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:54:00 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:48:55 +0100
Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com> wrote:

> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > this says you haven't done "make install" on the latencytop
> > directory so it's not translating things for you.. can you do that
> > please?
> 
> > Cause                                                Maximum
> > 
Percentage 

Scheduler: waiting for cpu                        208 msec         59.4 %


you're rather CPU bound, and your process was woken up but didn't run for over 200 milliseconds..
that sounds like a scheduler fairness issue!
--
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/