| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200607260745.33264.a1426z@gawab.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:45:33 +0300 From: Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu Cc: Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2 Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:27:14 +0300, Al Boldi said: > > Peter Williams wrote: > > > It's probably not a good idea to have different schedulers managing > > > the same resource. The way to do different scheduling per process is > > > to use the scheduling policy mechanism i.e. SCHED_FIFO, SCHED_RR, etc. > > > (possibly extended) within each scheduler. On the other hand, on an > > > SMP system, having a different scheduler on each run queue (or sub set > > > of queues) might be interesting :-). > > > > What's wrong with multiple run-queues on UP? > > On an SMP system, you can have one CPU doing one class of scheduling (long > timeslice for computational, for example), while another CPU is dedicated > to doing RT scheduling, and so on. It's not clear to me that "different > classes per CPU" makes any real sense on a UP.... Conceptually there should be no difference between UP and MP. Think HyperThreading. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists