linux-kernel - Re: CFS scheduler unfairly prefers pinned tasks

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: <201510081054.t98AsL1U003456@como.maths.usyd.edu.au>
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 2015 21:54:21 +1100
From:	paul.szabo@...ney.edu.au
To:	peterz@...radead.org, umgwanakikbuti@...il.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CFS scheduler unfairly prefers pinned tasks

Dear Mike,

> I see a fairness issue ... but one opposite to your complaint.

Why is that opposite? I think it would be fair for the one pert process
to get 100% CPU, the many oink processes can get everything else. That
one oink is lowly 10% (when others are 100%) is of no consequence.

What happens when you un-pin pert: does it get 100%? What if you run two
perts? Have you reproduced my observations?

---

Good to see that you agree on the fairness issue... it MUST be fixed!
CFS might be wrong or wasteful, but never unfair.

Cheers, Paul

Paul Szabo   psz@...hs.usyd.edu.au   http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/psz/
School of Mathematics and Statistics   University of Sydney    Australia
--
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/