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 17:18:31 -0500
From:	"Ryan Hope" <rmh3093@...il.com>
To:	"Al Boldi" <a1426z@...ab.com>
Cc:	"William Lee Irwin III" <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Pluggable Schedulers (was: [ANNOUNCE] RSDL completely fair starvation free interactive cpu scheduler)

from what I understood, there is a performance loss in plugsched
schedulers because they have to share code....

even if pluggable schedulers is not a viable option, being able to
choose which one was built into the kernel would be easy (only takes a
few ifdefs), i too think competition would be good

On 3/9/07, Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com> wrote:
> 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/
>
-
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/