| 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: <AANLkTimzEDtfUKajFPgGOhifPhyRQboZbKNbypBaKpKO@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:52:44 +0400 From: Dragoslav Zaric <zaricdragoslav@...il.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Tickles scheduler Did anybody test and compare work of ticking and tickles scheduler ? Currently I think it is implemented as ticking scheduler with hard-coded frequency (usually 100 Hz). Personally I think that tickles scheduler is much better solution, but maybe I am over-view something and maybe there are side effects when implementation starts ? Instead of tick, we can wait for events to happen (for example IRQ, add or remove process from list), and when periodic actions are needed, we can time schedule them dynamically based on system load. Can somebody give me some insight in this issue if he has any experience with this ? Is it at all possible to implement kernel without ticking, spin system by events and periods ? Maybe ticking is still best solution to have fast responding system ? Kind regards -- Dragoslav Zaric Professional Programmer MSc Astrophysics -- 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