linux-kernel - Re: SCHED: Is task migration necessary in sched

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]

Message-ID: <1261569112.4937.135.camel@laptop>
Date:	Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:51:52 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: SCHED: Is task migration necessary in sched_exec().

On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 17:35 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> Yes - current heuristics does this - to make sure that it doesn't have to
> wait too long. It pushes process into another runqueue (probably less loaded)
> just to make sure that - it will get the CPU a bit quickly. But when a task
> got the CPU - we should keep it out of equation. The point of moving task
> is - it have to wait less. At exec current task don't have to wait to get CPU.

No, moving tasks isn't (primarily) about latency, it is about ensuring a
fair proportion of service time.

Do you have a particular workload you worry about or are you merely
trying to satisfy your curiosity?

--
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/