| 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: <BAY180-W58C1DE82E5DB74292DF13D8FCF0@phx.gbl>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:18:27 +0200
From: Onorato Vaticone <kasper01_77@...mail.com>
To: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Scheduler algorithm
Hi all,
I have a doubt to clarify.
any scheduler class manage the "pick_next_task" internally (e.g.: CFS use a red-black tree and the "fair" algorithm, etc).
The main scheduler just:
class = sched_class_highest;
for ( ; ; ) {
p = class->pick_next_task(rq);
if (p)
return p;
/// ...
my question is from the "big picture" point of view:
when the scheduler ask for a new task as to the "highest class" first (RR/FIFO policy) and then stepping to the next one (CFS).
But, doesn't this treat the CFS process at the same level of the real time process?
I mean the scheduler ask first to the rt_sched_class and then fair_sched_class ... in a for ...
can you clarify, please where the "real time" task are different?
thanks in advance!
I'd like to be in cc'ed on this.
Kasper. --
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