linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] sched: disabled rt-bandwidth by default

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]

Message-ID: <48B6D353.6040001@qualcomm.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:33:23 -0700
From:	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>,
	Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] sched: disabled rt-bandwidth by default

Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Friday 29 August 2008 00:30, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>>> For this, if this time limit does kick in, we should at the very least
>>> print something out to let the user know this happened. After all,
>>> this is more of a safety net anyway, and if we are hitting the limit,
>>> the user should be notified. Perhaps even tell the user that if this
>>> behaviour is expected, to up the sysctl <var> by more.
>> yeah, agreed, this is a reasonable suggestion. Peter, do you agree?
> 
> Seems reasonable. But I still think it should be disabled by default
> (it might not get caught in testing for example).

I cannot believe you guys are still arguing about this and calling each 
other stupid/incompetent/braindead and such (not this particular email 
but all the stuff before) :)

Seems to me like leaving RT throttling disabled by default is a 
reasonable compromise. Several people suggested that and the advantage 
is that it does not change the definition of SCHED_FIFO/RR by default.

I personally do not care that much what the default is. If Fedora, for 
example, starts enabling it by default I'll still have to change it. So 
it's not much different from enabled by default in the kernel.

Max


--
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/