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  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]
Date:	Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:57:54 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <>
	Dhaval Giani <>,
	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <>,,
	Linux Containers <>,
	Herbert Poetzl <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] CPU hard limits

Bharata B Rao wrote:
>> So the groups with guarantees get a priority boost.  That's not a good  
>> side effect.
> That happens only in the presence of idle cycles when other groups [with or
> without guarantees] have nothing useful to do. So how would that matter
> since there is nothing else to run anyway ?

If there are three groups, each running a cpu hog, and they have (say) 
guarantees of 10%, 10%, and 0%, then they should each get 33% of the 
cpu, not biased towards the groups with the guarantee.

If I want to change the weights, I'll alter their priority.

I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists