linux-kernel - Re: sched: fix/optimise some issues

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: <1311189090.29152.73.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:11:30 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	stephan.baerwolf@...ilmenau.de
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	ncrao@...gle.com, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: sched: fix/optimise some issues

On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 15:42 +0200, Stephan Bärwolf wrote:
> In "check_preempt_tick()" (kernel/sched_fair.c:1093) a ulong
> called "ideal_runtime" stores a timeslice of the current task
> (scheduling entity). This time complies real cpu-time.
> 
> At the end of the same function (nr_running > 1) this (real) time
> is compared with a virtual-runtime-delta. Obviously the timeunits
> (real vs. virtual) didn't fit.
> 
> Using "wakeup_preempt_entity()" instead should fix this in a even
> more general way. 

Hrm,. I'm fairly sure we did that on purpose and the thing that is
missing is a big fat comment. People keep trying to fix that (me
included).

I'll try and dig up the why and such.
--
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/