linux-kernel - Re: Linux scheduler capabilities for batch jobs.

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: <4A240479.9040907@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:40:25 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	J Louis <handstogether8@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux scheduler capabilities for batch jobs.

J Louis wrote:

> If it was possible to tell
> the scheduler that it was OK not to be fair when scheduling these
> processes, I think the total runtime could be reduced if it put some
> of the processes to sleep while others completed.  Is there a way to
> tell the scheduler it is allowed to do this?  Should there be?

There is no way to do this currently, but I suspect that it
would not be too difficult to add.

Of course, if you have two tasks that are each a little larger
than memory, your idea could lead to one of the processes being
starved forever.  This is probably not acceptable :)

In fact, one single batch process that is swapping could trigger
the algorithm you described, halting itself.  Your idea would
need very carefuly implementation to avoid these kinds of issues,
but I believe it could definately be done.

-- 
All rights reversed.
--
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/