| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4A240A1D.8020906@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:04:29 +0300 From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> CC: J Louis <handstogether8@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux scheduler capabilities for batch jobs. Rik van Riel wrote: > 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. Some king of interaction between the swap token and the scheduler, perhaps, for SCHED_BATCH processes. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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