[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <12218300.6oQjICIiUq@ferry-quad>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:00:16 +0200
From: Ferry Toth <ftoth@...fort.nl>
To: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: DOS by unprivileged user
Op woensdag 25 april 2018 16:54:59 CEST schreef Alan Cox:
> > > I think memory allocation and io waits can't be decoupled from
> > > scheduling as they are now.
> >
> > The scheduler is not decoupled from either, it is intimately involved
> > in both. However, none of the decision making smarts for either reside
> > in the scheduler, nor should they.
>
> It belongs in both.
>
> Classical Unix systems never had this problem because they respond to
> thrashing by ensuring that all processes consumed CPU and made some
> progress. Linux handles it by thrashing itself to dealth while BSD always
> handled it by moving from paging more towards swapping and behaving like
> a swap bound batch machine.
>
> Linux thrashes itself to death, the classic BSD algorithn instead throws
> fairness out of the window under extreme load to prevent it. It might take
> a few seconds but at least you will get your prompt back.
>
> Alan
>
I haven.t tried BSD.
But when I was young I allocated 10MB on a HP9000 (UX) with 1MB of RAM. People wanted to launch me out of the window (18th floor).
I did not want to say Unix was better, only with so much emphasis on security I'.m surprised how easy it is for a regular user to bring linux to on it.s knees.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists