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: <48B6EB6F.2050802@compro.net>
Date:	Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:16:15 -0400
From:	Mark Hounschell <markh@...pro.net>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>,
	Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>,
	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] sched: disabled rt-bandwidth by default

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> I've always thought that the policy settings belong in the distro, and the 
>> kernel should never enforce a policy (by setting this as default, it is 
>> enforcing a policy, even though an RT user can change it).
> 
> The kernel has always done a certain amount of "default policy". 
> 
> What do you think things like "swappiness" etc are? Or things like 
> oevrcommit settings? They're all policies, and there is always a default 
> one. So in that sense the kernel always has - and fundamentally _must_ - 
> set some kind of policy.
> 
> And the default policy should generally be the one that makes sense for 
> most people. Quite frankly, if it's an issue where all normal distros 
> would basically be expected to set a value, then that value should _be_ 
> the default policy, and none of the normal distros should ever need to 
> worry.
> 
> Whether this case is one such, I dunno. Quite frankly, I don't think it's 
> even _nearly_ important enough to get this kind of noise.
> 
> 		Linus

More and more are wanting and now finding the Linux kernel to be more
RT capable. I seem to remember way back you saying it was one thing 
you didn't really care much about one way or the other. Thats OK. But, 
you _are_ the man. Put an end to this. Are you going to allow the long
understood meaning of SCHED_FIFO to change in the Linux kernel 
just to protect a few _supposedly_ bad programmers???

Regards
Mark

--
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/