| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140114165119.GJ7572@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:51:19 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>, "markgross@...gnar.org" <markgross@...gnar.org>, "vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [3/11] issue 3: No understanding of potential cpu capacity On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:39:54PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > Responsiveness is still very important. It is quite hard to control. CFS > doesn't consider latency. The only way to get the best responsiveness is > to go for best performance which comes at a high cost in energy. The big problem is that the normal unix task model doesn't cover his at all -- nice isn't much of a knob. There's ways in which you can adapt CFS to include such a measure (search for the EEVDF patches), but I was kinda hoping that tasks that really desire responsiveness could be made to use SCHED_DEADLINE or 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists