linux-kernel - Re: BFS cpu scheduler v0.304 stable release

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:53:37 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
CC:	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: BFS cpu scheduler v0.304 stable release

On 10/16/2009 04:58 AM, Con Kolivas wrote:

> to this, BFS also uses sub-tick accounting. What BFS does _not_ now feature is
> support for CGROUPS. The average user should neither need to know what these
> are, nor should they need to be using them to have good desktop behaviour.

That said, it's useful for embedded purposes and I could see some use in
that area for your BFS scheduler since they often care about latency and
tend to use low numbers of cpus.

> It is surprisingly difficult to get accurate CPU accounting, and in many cases,
> the accounting is done by simply determining what is happening at the precise
> moment a timer tick fires off.

With sched_clock() it would seem that this is not as applicable as it
used to be.

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/