linux-kernel - Re: Scheduler queues for less os-jitter?

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

Message-ID: <1352032908.8944.34.camel@maggy.simpson.net>
Date:	Sun, 04 Nov 2012 05:41:48 -0700
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Uwaysi Bin Kareem <uwaysi.bin.kareem@...adoxuncreated.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler queues for less os-jitter?

On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 10:20 +0100, Uwaysi Bin Kareem wrote: 
> Ok, anyway realtime processes did not work quite as expected.  
> ("overloaded" machine, even though cpu-time is only 10%). So I guess I  
> have to enable cgroups and live with the overhead then.
> 
> If I set cpu-limits there, does that involve an absolute value, or is it  
> normalized, so that even if I do 0.001% cpu for processes, they get all  
> cpu, when there is nothing running?

See Documentation/cgroups.  Between cgroups, cpusets, scheduler classes
and priorities, you have heaping truckloads of control over what runs
where and when.  The missing element in your low jitter quest is a
desktop and applications that were written for realtime performance.

-Mike

--
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/