linux-kernel - Re: Pluggable Schedulers (was: [ANNOUNCE] RSDL completely fair starvation free interactive cpu scheduler)

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]

Date:	Fri, 9 Mar 2007 23:43:46 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Pluggable Schedulers (was: [ANNOUNCE] RSDL completely fair starvation free interactive cpu scheduler)

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> I consider policy issues to be hopeless political quagmires and
> >> therefore stick to mechanism. So even though I may have started the
> >> code in question, I have little or nothing to say about that sort of
> >> use for it.
> >> There's my longwinded excuse for having originated that tidbit of code.
>
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 04:25:55PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > I've no idea what both of you are talking about.
>
> The short translation of my message for you is "Linus, please don't
> LART me too hard."

Right.

> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 04:25:55PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > How can giving people the freedom of choice be in any way
> > counter-productive?
>
> This sort of concern is too subjective for me to have an opinion on it.

How diplomatic.

> My preferred sphere of operation is the Manichean domain of faster vs.
> slower, functionality vs. non-functionality, and the like. For me, such
> design concerns are like the need for a kernel to format pagetables so
> the x86 MMU decodes what was intended, or for a compiler to emit valid
> assembly instructions, or for a programmer to write C the compiler
> won't reject with parse errors.

Sure, but I think, even from a technical point of view, competition is a good 
thing to have.  Pluggable schedulers give us this kind of competition, that 
forces each scheduler to refine or become obsolete.  Think evolution.

> If Linus, akpm, et al object to the
> design, then invalid output was produced. Please refer to Linus, akpm,
> et al for these sorts of design concerns.

Point taken.

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And hey, you can try to prove me wrong. Code talks. So far, nobody has
> really ever come close.
>
> So go and code it up, and show the end result. So far, nobody who actually
> *does* CPU schedulers have really wanted to do it, because they all want
> to muck around with their own private versions of the data structures.

What about PlugSched?


Thanks!

--
Al

-
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/