| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:57:02 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Primiano Tucci <p.tucci@...il.com> Cc: rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: Re: Considerations on sched APIs under RT patch On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 15:50 +0200, Primiano Tucci wrote: > I knew this kind of solution based on OS-partitioning, but my group > and I are currently working on a Global-EDF scheduler, a unique > scheduler (and therefore a unique OS/Kernel) that is able to migrate > tasks between CPUs in order to maximize the global CPU usage. I would hardly call a global-edf scheduler unique. Its a well studied algorithm and even available in commercial SMP operating systems (hopefully soon Linux too, see SCHED_DEADLINE, which will approximate global-edf, much like the current SCHED_FIFO approximates global-fifo). > In order to to this we have a unique "super"-process (a > Meta-Scheduler) that needs to be able to control priority and affinity > of the managed tasks, without losing the control while doing this. Implementing this as userspace/middleware seems daft. But if your controlling process has a global affinity mask and runs as the highest available userspace process priority its still all valid. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists