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:	Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:22:41 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?


* Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com> wrote:

>              cat-7717  [000]  1392.941867: __tasklet_schedule <-ath5k_intr
>              cat-7717  [000]  1393.005963: __tasklet_schedule <-ath5k_intr
>              cat-7717  [000]  1393.033222: __switch_to <-schedule
>
> Here a schedule seemingly doesn't happen for a few hundredths of a second...

that's about 60 msecs. ath5k_intr IRQ handling overhead? IRQ handlers 
are non-preemptible. (even under CONFIG_PREEMPT=y)

	Ingo
--
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/