linux-kernel - Re: sched_fair: the schedule check condition?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1267778031.9309.15.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date:	Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:33:51 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	figo zhang <figo1802@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sched_fair: the schedule check condition?

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 15:56 +0800, figo zhang wrote:
> hi,
> 
> in check_preempt_tick() funtion, the check schedule condition the
> reality increasing runtime "delta_exec"
> and vruntime increasing "delta", and reality ideal time "ideal_runtime":
> 
>             if (delta_exec > ideal_runtime)
> and
>             if (delta > ideal_runtime)
> 
> if equal,  it should be need schedule?

Moving the border 1 ns just doesn't matter given the huge pile of ns on
either side of that border.

	-Mike

--
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/