| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:17:59 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Jason mclaughlin <mcjason@...il.com> Cc: mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: fixed timeslice On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 09:58 -0400, Jason mclaughlin wrote: > 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? I'm rather confused. If a task is blocked on IO its not contending for CPU resources and is thus irrelevant to the running tasks and their fairness. Also, only SCHED_RR has a fixed 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists