linux-kernel - Re: scheduler nice 19 versus 'idle' behavior / static low-priority scheduling

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: <1233305433.4495.154.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:50:33 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Nathanael Hoyle <nhoyle@...letech.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: scheduler nice 19 versus 'idle' behavior / static low-priority
 scheduling

On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 00:49 -0500, Nathanael Hoyle wrote:
> 
> 1) Is my problem 'expected' based on others' understanding of the
> current design of the scheduler, or do I have a one-off problem to
> troubleshoot here?

What kernel are you running (or did my eye glance over that detail in
your longish email) ?

> 2) Am I overlooking obvious alternative (but clean) fixes?

Maybe, we fixed a glaring bug in this department recently (or more even,
if you're on older than .28).

> 3) Does anyone else see the need for static, but low process priorities?

Yep, its rather common.

> 4) What is the view of introducing a new scheduler class to handle this?

We should have plenty available, SCHED_IDLE should just work -- as
should nice 19 for that matter.

--
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/