linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: add yield

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: <1291411391.2032.4.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 03 Dec 2010 22:23:11 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Avi Kiviti <avi@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: add yield_to function

On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 19:40 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 07:36:07PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 03:03:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > No, because they do receive service (they spend some time spinning
> > > before being interrupted), so the respective vruntimes will increase, at
> > > some point they'll pass B0 and it'll get scheduled.
> > 
> > Is that sufficient to ensure that B0 receives its fair share (1/3 cpu in this
> > case)?
> 
> Hmm perhaps yes, althought at cost of tons of context switches, which would be
> nice to minimize on?

Don't care, as long as the guys calling yield_to() pay for that time its
their problem.
--
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/