linux-kernel - fixed timeslice

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8bfdd4d60905110658g186bc26el703eb1baf076616e@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 May 2009 09:58:52 -0400
From:	Jason mclaughlin <mcjason@...il.com>
To:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: fixed timeslice

can't scheduling be unfair when a fixed timeslice is used as the time
up til a process can run?

won't it work out that if a program is using the harddrive, and
another is using cpu time and using up it's timeslices, that the
cpu user will give less runtime opportunity to the harddrive user
because of a wait up until timeslice to use the harddrive again?

like, doesn't the length of a timeslice change the fairness of
scheduling opportunity for harddrive use?

can't it span the time that something is ready to take from the
harddrive, til the time the harddrive can be used again?

can't it anyways in some cases though no matter what, because of how
using up til a timeslice is available sometimes when something wants
to use the harddrive again,
and because what wants to use the harddrive can be behind what uses a
whole timeslice?
--
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/