linux-kernel - Re: Tickles scheduler

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1010271725260.9704@router.home>
Date:	Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:26:44 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Martin Nybo Andersen <tweek@...ek.dk>
cc:	Dragoslav Zaric <zaricdragoslav@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Tickles scheduler

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Dragoslav Zaric wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > Is it at all possible to implement kernel without ticking, spin system
> > by events and periods ?
>
> You can compile with CONFIG_NO_HZ=n if you want a ticking kernel.

The kernel always ticks when a process is running CONFIG_NO_HZ does
nothing for that.

> > Maybe ticking is still best solution to have fast responding system ?

I think we need a tickless kernel.... Yes....

> My guesses are that it has already been benchmarked for speed, but you can
> still test it yourself.
> At least power usage/battery times is much better with a tickless kernel.

Well yes CONFIG_NO_HZ really should say CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE. You have
no ticks when a cpu is idle. Otherwise we are ticking...

--
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/