* matthieu castet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, may be DOS was not the correct term, [...]
ok, good that have that issue put aside ;-)
> [...] but with the 2.6.21 hrt there is a great difference between an
> infinite loop and the high-rate context-switching task (you can try
> attached pro
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, it is not really a DoS. The rescheduling of the process is
limited by the scheduler and the available CPU time (depending on
the number of runnable tasks in the system).
Shouldn't an unprivileged process be rate limited somehow t
* Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, it is not really a DoS. The rescheduling of the process is
> > limited by the scheduler and the available CPU time (depending on
> > the number of runnable tasks in the system).
>
> Shouldn't an unprivileged process be rate limited somehow to a
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Lee Revell wrote:
On 4/28/07, Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, it is not really a DoS. The rescheduling of the process is limited
by the scheduler and the available CPU time (depending on the number of
runnable tasks in the system).
Shouldn't an unpriv
On 4/28/07, Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, it is not really a DoS. The rescheduling of the process is limited
by the scheduler and the available CPU time (depending on the number of
runnable tasks in the system).
Shouldn't an unprivileged process be rate limited somehow to av
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 23:53 +0200, matthieu castet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> some programs need to do some short of busyloop. It was often
> implemented as :
>
> while (1) {
> if (can_do_stuff) {
> do_stuff();
> }
> else
> //sleep a very short of time
>
Hi,
some programs need to do some short of busyloop. It was often
implemented as :
while (1) {
if (can_do_stuff) {
do_stuff();
}
else
//sleep a very short of time
usleep(1);
}
usleep(1) or equivalent where used instead of
7 matches
Mail list logo
