linux-kernel - Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE 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:	Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:50:41 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org, raziebe@...il.com,
	maximlevitsky@...il.com, cfriesen@...tel.com, efault@....de,
	riel@...hat.com, wiseman@...s.biu.ac.il,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:40:09 -0400 (EDT)
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> Peter has not given a solution to the problem. Nor have you.

What problem?

All I've seen is "I want 100% access to a CPU".  That's not a problem
statement - it's an implementation.

What is the problem statement?

My take on these patches: the kernel gives userspace unmediated access
to memory resources if it wants that.  The kernel gives userspace
unmediated access to IO devices if it wants that.  But for some reason
people freak out at the thought of providing unmediated access to CPU
resources.

Don't get all religious about this.  If the change is clean,
maintainable and useful then there's no reason to not merge it.

--
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/