| 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: <4ABD4839.7060508@nortel.com> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:46:17 -0600 From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> CC: Michael Trimarchi <trimarchi@...dalf.sssup.it>, sat <takeuchi_satoru@...fujitsu.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it> Subject: Re: massive_intr on CFS, BFS, and EDF On 09/25/2009 04:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 15:31 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: >> Do you allow oversubscription with EDF? It would seem so based on these >> results. Would it maybe make sense to disallow oversubscription, or >> make it an option? > > afaiu he doesn't, he simply splits the task's wcet between parent and > child and (intends?) to feed back on child exit. How does this work if we have one parent task that forks off a bunch of kids like massive_intr? Does each child get half the bandwidth of the previous child? > oversubscribing edf isn't in general recommended, iirc u>1 gives > unbounded latencies with edf. Right...so would it perhaps be more interesting to try a modified test where each child's bandwidth is equal and small enough that there is no oversubscription? Chris -- 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