linux-kernel - Re: The 10ms averager in fair.c

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

Message-id: <op.wlp1kwg76426ze@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:54:22 +0200
From:	Uwaysi Bin Kareem <uwaysi.bin.kareem@...adoxuncreated.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The 10ms averager in fair.c

Ok I have gained a bit more information on this now. Apparently, the  
filter is there, for HPC loads to exclude scheduler activity itself from  
the scheduler?

Filtering all the processes for this, seems completely unessecary though.  
Depending on what resolution these filters run at, you have 50 filters  
running at resolution X, only to do that, with 50 processes. Why not just  
replace that with a simple, on off, say cpu usage = 0 for the first 1 ms.  
Scheduler activity probably doesn`t last longer than that, atleast with  
preempt on. And with a filter you will have 10ms activity indication after  
the last input. That should just be truncated, and after 1ms things should  
just work on peak values. (not average).

 From thinking about how this filter would improve anything, that seems  
like the better way to do anything like that.

Peace Be With You.
--
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/