| 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: <4B18F59B.6@suse.de> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:12:19 +0530 From: Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@...e.de> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: fix GENTLE_FAIR_SLEEPERS dependency On 12/04/2009 04:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 15:50 +0530, Suresh Jayaraman wrote: >> >> I think originally introduced as a development/debugging facility, >> sched_features is slowly transforming into a viable tool for System >> Administrators, by looking at the impact of turning on/off some of these >> features on some workloads (especially non-desktop workloads). And I >> think these benefits should be passed on to the end users perhaps in the >> form of documentation. > > This is really not meant to be used in that context. Its purely a debug > feature, with knobs coming and going as we see fit. > Does this also mean these features should not impact any specific workload much? http://osdir.com/ml/linux-kernel/2009-09/msg03406.html In the thread above Ingo mentions about a few features and my understanding is that some of these might favour one type of workload than other. Is this not true anymore? Thanks, -- Suresh Jayaraman -- 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