linux-kernel - Re: [tip:sched/core] sched: Keep kthreads at default priority

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]

Date:	Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:06:41 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:	mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	efault@....de, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched: Keep kthreads at default priority

On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 09:55 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 03:37:34PM +0000, tip-bot for Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
> > index eb8751a..5fe7099 100644
> > --- a/kernel/kthread.c
> > +++ b/kernel/kthread.c
> > @@ -16,8 +16,6 @@
> >  #include <linux/mutex.h>
> >  #include <trace/events/sched.h>
> >  
> > -#define KTHREAD_NICE_LEVEL (-5)
> > -
> 
> Why don't we just redefine it to 0? We may find out later that we'd
> still prefer to have kernel threads have boost.

Seems sensible, also the traditional reasoning behind this nice level is
that kernel threads do work on behalf of multiple tasks. Its a kind of
prio ceiling thing.

--
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/